"General Introduction to Biblical Theology. 
cial Introduction to Prophetic Revelation. 
he Doctrinal Content of the Prophecy of Hosea. — 


‘ rs i 


‘ED NOT PUBLISHED] _ 


UNIVERSITY PRINTERS. 


Wartield Library 


AMA OF PRIS. 
fes* mPa 
FEB 221926 


KY 
ye 


SYLLABUS Leovanrat_ seas 


OF 


Lectures on Biblical Theology 


BY 


ve 
Geerhardus Vos, Ph.D., D.D. 


I. General Introduction to Biblical Theology. 
II. Special Introduction to Prophetic Revelation. 
III. The Doctrinal Content of the Prophecy of Hosea. 


(PRINTED NOT PUBLISHED] 


PRINCETON : 
C. S, ROBINSON & CO,, UNIVERSITY PRINTERS. 


/ SA S~ /@ (e > 
j ; 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2023 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/syllabusoflecturOOvosg 


LECTURES ON BIBLICAL 
THEOLOGH: 


I, Genera [ntTRopuUcTION to BrBiicaL THEOLOGY, 


The nature of Theology in general should be understood in 
order to reach a clear conception of Biblical Theology in par- 
ticular. Etymology of the word @eodoyea shows that it origin- 
ally means a knowledge concerning God. This is confirmed 
by encyclopeedic principles. The classification of sciences 
follows the dividing lines existing in reality. If Theology is 
to be a separate scieuce, it must have a separate object. 
This can be none other than God as distinct from every 
created being. Theology deals with God alone. All other 
things discussed in it, the kosmos, man, ete., are considered 
in their relation to God. To make other things, in them- 
selves, the object of Theology deprives the latter of its in- 
dependent existence. HL. g.,some say: Theology is the science 
of religion. But religion means either the subjective relig- 
ious states and phenomena in man, and then Theology - 
would become a part of Anthropology, the science of man; 
or religion means the true religion as objectively revealed by 
God, and in this case, we would for the sake of scientific 
precision and thoroughness have to recur from what God 
has revealed upon what God is, his nature determining his 
revelation. In other words: we should discuss God’s revela- 
tion as expressive of his nature, which would lead back to 
the first definition: Theology is the science concerning 
God. 

Theology has 1.) a unique object; 2.) a unique origin. 
In all other sciences the scientist is active and aggressive 
over against the object of his science. In Theology, the 
object, God, is the first active cause of all knowledge con- 
cerning Himself that is acquired. He is not first investi- 
gated, but He first reveals Himself. Creation of man as the 


4 


subject, who is to know God, is itself a revelation. All 
nature is a revelation. The work of redemption is a revela- 
tion. This unique origin of Theology determines its method. 
It being a science produced by self-revelation of the object 
(God) to the subject (man), Theology must begin not with 
producing but with appropriating. The first great depart- 
ment of Theology, therefore, is 

Exegetical Theology. In the development of Theology a 
group of studies have been separated from the rest and begun 
to form a smaller organism among themselves, because the 
receptive attitude of the theological consciousness toward the 
source of revelation is common to them. This was not a 
matter of accident, nor of agreement among Theologians, 
the immanent law of development of the science, as rooted 
in its nature, brought it about. To Exegetical Theology 
belong various studies, some more auxiliary and lying on the 
periphery, some more central, . g, the science which as- 
certains the sense of the Scriptures== Exegesis Proper; the 
science which traces the commitment of the Word of God to 
writing and its collection into a Canon = Introduction and 
Canonics. But after knowing what the Bible means, and 
how the Bible was written, we must take one more step. 
Back of the writing of the Bible lies the historical revela- 
tion of God, to perpetuate and transmit which the Bible 
serves asa means to an end. In tracing this historical reve- 
lation scientifically Exegetical Theology performs its highest 
and last function. 

Preliminary definition: Biblical Theology is that part of 
Exegetical Theology which deals with the revelation of God from 
the point of view of the revealing activity of God Himself. Not 
with revelation as a finished product (this Systematic The- 
ology does), but as a historical process. Biblical Theology 
describes revelation as a divine work. Its nature, therefore, 
is determined by the characteristics of God’s work of revela- 
tion. The first of these characteristics is its historical pro- 
gress. God has not revealed the full content of the truth at 
once, but one part after the other in historic sequence. 
Revelation has run its course through ages. The reason for 
this is that revelation is not an independent activity of God, 
but closely associated with that other activity of God which 
we call redemption in its widest sense, as a regeneration of 
the kosmos. Now, the latter being historical, the former 


5 


must be so likewise. Redemption is historical because. it 
proceeds on the basis of and in contact with the natural 
development of this world and of the human race which takes 
place in the form of history. In the process of redemption 
two stages must be distinguished: 1.) Odjective and central 
redemption, consisting of those redemptive acts of God which 
aim at the production of an organic centre for the new order 
of things. The whole series of redeeming acts described in 
the Bible, culminating in the incarnation and atoning work 
of the Mediator and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit be- 
long to this. These acts are objective, that is they take place 
outside of man, they take place once for all, and at the same 
time for the whole body of the elect; 2.) Subjective and indi- 
vidual redemption, consisting in the application ot objective 
redemption to individuals in a series of repeated single acts. 
ff. g., the incarnation, the atonement, the Pentecostal pour- 
ing out of the Spirit cannot be repeated, but regeneration, 
justification, glorification are daily repeated. Observe: a.) 
Objective redemption has been always accompanied by sub+ 
jective redemption from the beginning, but subjective 
redemption is no longer ac companied by objective redemp- 
tion since the close of the Apostolic times. b) Nevertheless 
subjective redemption in all its fulness could only begin after 
the other had been accomplished and in so far the distinetion 
in character is also a distinction in chronological sequence. 
The O. T. Saints were not so completely redeemed subjec- 
tively as those under the N. T. c.) The relation between 
objective and subjective redemption is organic. The former 
is the center of a circle from which the influences radiate in 
every direction. The center is Christ, cfr. Phil. III, 21. All 
regeneration, justification, glorification result organically 
from the atonement, the resurrection, the intercession of 
Christ. 

Revelation is not coextensive with the whole process of redemp- 
tion, but only with its objective slage. Those who make objec- 
tive redemption and miracles go on, therefore, must also 
make revelation continue after the Apostolic age. This the 
Roman Church virtually does. Revelation belongs to the 
stage of objective redemption because it addresses itself not 
to individual needs, but tothe common and objective needs 
of God’s people asa whole. This alone will explain why 
the promulgation of God’s oracles to the world coincides with 


6 


the accomplishment of the work of redemption; they were 
both finished together; as God gave a finished redemption, 
so He gave a finished revelation to the world. The mystical 
view fails to appreciate this objective and universal character 
of revelation. It holds that revelation is a matter for indi- 
viduals, inteuded to solve personal questions; consequently. 
it believesin continued revelations to individual men. Some 
hold that all redemption, also that which is now going on in 
individuals, should be subsumed under revelation. But, 
although God continues to work supernaturally, yet this 
work in regeneration, justification, etc., does not communt- 
cate new truth to us. We experience these acts and dis- 
cern their true nature and significance only by the light of 
God’s past revelation. In themselves they would be blind 
and not reveal anything. All the truth interwoven with 
them is derived from the Scriptures. There is only one 
sense in which revelation can be said to be unfinished. At 
the Parousia of Christ there will be new objective redemp- 
tive acts of a central and universa) character. But even 
those have been partially predicted and described in past 
revelation. 

The second characteristic of revelation hes in its Azstori- 
cal embodiment in distinction from its historical progress. It 
follows not merely the course of history but it 7s history to a 
large extent. for, 1.) To a large ea the historic acts of 
redemption are revealing acts. In themselves they are a 
disclosure of truth. Sacred History is full of such revelation- 
acts. Hence distinguish between word-revelation and act- 
revelation. ®.) These revelation-acts are not merely embed- 
ded in Sacred History, but they furnish its great joints and 
ligaments, the skeleton on which the body is constructed. 
God’s revelation-acts mark the critical epochs of Sacred His- 
tory. 8.) Revelation-acts are seldom for the purpose of 
revelation alone. They usually serve an ulterior purpose. 
Hy. g., the atonement served primarily the satisfaction of 
divine justice and only secondarily the revelation of that 
satisfaction. Only in the cases of some miracles revelation 
is the only purpose. 4.) Revealing acts never appear sep- 
arated from verba] communications of truth. Without God’s 
acts the words would be empty, without his words the acts 
would be blind. The usual order is that the words come 
first to announce and introduce and prepare for the acts. 


7 


‘Then follow the acts to be followed in turn by an interpre- 
tation in words. The distinction between word-revelation 
‘and act-revelation should not be interpreted to mean that 
the two ever appear independently of one another. 

The third characteristic of revelation is its practical 
aspect, It is not given for an intellectual purpose primarily. 
It is intended to enter into the life of man, to be worked out 
by him. To know in the Shemitic sense is to become prac- 
tically acquainted with a thing, to have the consciousness of 
its reality and of its properties interwoven with one’s life. 
Because God wishes so to be known, He has made the dis- 
closure of his revelation dependent upon its practical appro- 
priation in the historic life of a people. Revelation is con- 
nected with the life of Israel; it is the moulding power of 
that life. As the Bible puts it: God has revealed Himself 
in the covenant and not inaschool. The covenant is an all- 
comprehensive communion of life. Of course the imparting 
‘of new knowitedge is essential to revelation, but this knowl- 
edge is imparted in an experimental form. 

The combination of the historical and practical features 
of revelation yields its third characteristic, that of organic 
growth. The adjustment of revelation to the historic life of 
the people, who had to appropriate it, required an unfolding 
-of the truth in which everything was determined by the Jaws 
of historic development. That this is so may be further 
shown 1.) By the fact that only in this way the absolute 
character of revealed truth from the beginning can be made 
consistent with its gradual perfection. In the organic pro- 
cess the end is more than the beginning and yet the begin- 
ning also is perfect in itself. Perfection here is no correction, 
no elimination of any impure element. 2.) The truth, being 
given, for a practical purpose, must have been in principle 
the same ut all times, because the fundamental wants of the 
people of God, who were to be saved, were the same. The 
heart of divine truth, that by which men live, must have 
been there, through all the stages of growth of the truth. 
3.) The course of revelation follows the course of objective, 
central redemption. But it can be shown that the latter 
itself was an organic growth. The purpose of redemption 
is the renewal of the kosmos with elect humanity as its cen- 
ter. God effects this renewal not mechanically by changing 
one part after another, but by preparing an organic center, 


8 


and building up the new world around this. This organic 
eenter is the Incarnate Christ. The O. T. is the stage of 
preparation for this center. All its periods show organic 
progress. And the advance of revealed knowledge in the O. 
T. can be shown to follow this progress stage by stage. At 
critical junctures where the history of redemption takes rapid 
strides, so does the history of revelation, In long periods 
where the former rests, so is the latter silent. It is the same 
in the N. T. The N. T. times brought the full-grown re- 
demption; the N. T. times brought also the full-grown Word 
of God with all its wealth of truth. 4.) A feature of organic 
growth is progressive multiformity, differentiation. This 
also is found in revelation. These are various types of truth, 
such as the legal, prophetic, Chokma types in the O. T. and 
in the N. T. the Gospels, the Epistles, the Apocalypse. 
Besides these there are numerous minor variations associated 
with the individual character of the writers. The multt- 
formity grows with the growth of revelation; it is greater in 
the N. T. than inthe Old. The more fully the whole divine 
counsel is disclosed, the more necessary it became to use 
various human instrumentalities to represent its various 
aspects. Individual coloring is not to be conceived of as an 
unavoidable weakness and inadequacy in the human instru- 
ment of revelation, but as a result of prearranged adaptation 
to the inherent needs of revelation. God had by providence 
and grace prepared all these organs. 

Full definition of the subject: Biblical Theology is the 
exhibition of the organic progress of special revelation in its historie 
continuity and multiformity. 

Biblical Theology has been often treated in a way at 
variance with this definition. -At first it was nothing more 
than a collection of proof-texts to establish the Loci of Dog- 
matics. The Pietists cultivated it as an attempt to substitute 
a more simple and Scriptural phraseology for the scholastic | 
forms of the current Dogmatics Neither of these attempts, 
however, marks the true birth of our science. A new science 
must rest on a new scientific principle and such was lacking 
here, Biblical Theology with these parties being merely an 
unscientific variation of Dogmatics. Biblical Theology asa 
distinct science originated when the historical principle was 
recognized as differentiating it from Dogmatics. Unfort- 
unately this was first done in a more or less Rationalistic 


9 


sense, and with Rationalistic animus. To Rationalism his- 
tory was the realm of the contingent, the relative, the arbi- 
trary as over against the deliverances of pure reason. The 
first writers on Biblical Theology, accordingly, studied the 
historical element in the Bible, not as subservient to a better 
understanding of the truth, but as something to be set aside 
in order to reach the truth. The historical principle with 
them eliminated or neutralized the revelation-principle. And 
ever since that time Biblical Theology has been influenced 
by the successive philosophical currents At present the 
evolutionistie philosophy is largely shaping its treatment. 
Biblical Theology is affected by this philosophy more than 
any other branch of theological study because its principle 
of historical progress presents certain analogies with the 
evolutionary scheme. The harmful eftect of this influence 
may be observed in two directions: 1.) Evolutionistic philo 
sophy is bent upon showing a development from the lower 
and imperfect to the higher and more perfect forms. This 
is applied to the erowth of truth as observed in Sacred 
History. A development i is traced from gross, sensual, phys- 
ical conceptions to ethical and spiritual ideas, from Animism 
and Polytheism to Monolatry and Monotheism. This, of 
course, rules out the revelation-factor. What God has re- 
vealed cannot be gross, sensual, physical, imperfect in this 
sense. 2.) The philosophy of Evolutionism is agnostic. It 
teaches that only phenomena can be known. But Theology 
in the old sense dealt with such metaphysical realities as God 
and heaven and immortality. Such a Theology has no place 
in the evolutionary scheme, which recognizes only phenom- 
ena. Hence Theology must be so reconstructed as to become 
a science of phenomena. This is done by making it the 
science of religion, in the sense of a phenomenology of 
religion, wherein the objective correlates of religion, the 
existence and nature of God, etc., are neglected. This being 
the new idea of Theology in seneral, Biblical Theology in 
particular must be defined accordingly, thus becoming the 
science of the development of the religion recorded in the 
Biblical writings, the history of the religion of Israel and of 
primitive Christianity. From this standpoint no distinction 
ean be allowed between Sacred History and Church History 
inasmuch as both trace subjective developments. There are 
three degrees in the thoroughness with which this principle 
is applied. 


10 


1.) Some recogiize special revelation as a fact, but 
think that as such it is not accessible to scientific research ; 
that the utmost we can do is to observe its influence after it 
has blended with the religious consciousness of the people to 
whom it was given; that consequently the object of Biblical 
Theology is the religion of the Bible and that from this 
religion we reason back to the revelation that produced it. 
Our answer to this is twofold: a.) The investigation of the 
Biblical religion belongs to another department, viz., to 
Sacred History; b.) the Biblical records themselves do not 
follow this method; they everywhere describe first the self- 
revelation of God and show only in the second place its 
effect upon the life of Israel. 

2.) Others recognize special revelation as to super- 
natural facts but not as to supernaturally communicated 
words. The whole doctrinal content of the Scriptures, they 
say, has sprung from human reflection upon such facts. 
The facts were strictly divine, their interpretation was 
imperfect and human, subject to development. ‘To this we 
reply: a.) Man reveals himself not by acts alone, but chiefly 
by words; how can we ascribe to God a mode of self-revela- 
tion less perfect than that of man, who yet was made in 
God's image? b.) This theory is at variance with the facts 
of revelation. All prophecy would remain unexplained on 
its basis, cfr. Amos II], 7. 

3.) Still others do not even recognize objective divine 
acts of a supernatural character. Revelation with them is 
so defined that it no longer means the communication to 
man of divine thoughts either by word or act. It is made 
to mean the production of certain religious thoughts and 
feelings within the mind of man, which are divine in no 
other sense than that the Spirit of God has had some share 
in causing them to issue into consciousness. The product 
of revelation, so conceived, is of course fallible and imper- 
fect. Revelation is a gift of the Spirit to Israel in the same 
sense as aesthetic development was a gift of the same Spirit 
to Greece. Against this: a.) It is contrary to the view of 
the Biblical writers themselves; b.) It can no longer be 
distinguished from, nor scientifically upheld against the view 
of others, who deny every special influence of the Spirit and 
explain everything from naturalistic evolution. In their 
treatment of the phenomena of Biblical History the adher- 


11 


ents of both views are equally unscrupulous. The only dif- 
ference is that one posits something mysterious behind the 
process, the other does not. 

Over against these erroneous views we must lay down the 
following principles as regulative for our study of Biblical 
Theology. 

1.) We must maintain the infallible character of revelation. 
Revelation as infallible is of the essence of Supernaturalism 
and even of Theism. There is usually connection between 
the philosophy of a writer and his view of revelation. Not 
all views of revelation will fit into every explanation of the 
universe. In general it may be said that such views as 
postulate a revelation conditioned and obstructed in its 
genesis by the imperfection of man, fit into a Pantheistic 
theory of the universe. If God be the unconscious back- 
ground of the universe, we would a priori expect his truth 
and light so to reveal themselves. If, on the other hand, 
God be conscious and personal, the inference is that in his 
self-disclosure He will maintain his personality and place 
his thoughts before us with the stamp of divinity upon them, 
1. @., a8 Ynfallible thoughts. But we may reason in the 
reverse order also. If God has so imperfectly revealed [im- 
self, the inference is probable that he is conditioned and 
obstructed by the media of revelation, which is clearly 
Pantheism. If He has perfectly and infallibly revealed 
Himself, the inference seems justified that He is free person- 
ality, which is clearly Theism. 

2.) The historical character of revelation is not antithetical 
ibut subordinated to its infallible character. The truth of the 
Bible is not absolute, nothwithstanding its historic setting, 
but in virtue of it. The history of Israel is Sacred History 
not merely because it is the depository of divine revelation, 
‘but for the other reason also that God has specially designed 
-and shaped it to become the receptacle for the truth from 
above. 

3.) Revelation should be defined sufficiently wide to sub- 
sume inspiration under it. Inspiration is the last act in 
the process whereby God has given us the new truth 
belonging to the new world of redemption. Biblical Theol- 
ogy is not content with enumerating the single acts of direct 
verbal communication of truth; it seeks likewise to exhibit 
the plan and system of these acts, to write the history of 


12 


revelation in the light of the principles which have shaped 
its course. Now, the Bible throughout has and emphatically 
states its own interpretation of the facts in the light of prin- 
ciples. The Bible contains a philosophy of the history of 
revelation. If we believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures 
we can not reject or pass by this divine philosophy and sub- 
stitute for it one of our own making. On‘the other hand, 
if we desire to be scientific in our treatment of Biblical 
Theology we cannot leave the facts uncorrelated and unin- 
terpreted, but must choose some philosophy that will explain 
them. The question of inspiration, therefore, is not one that 
can be ignored or left undecided in dealing with our subject. 
Biblical Theology, in order to be truly Biblical, must not 
only derive its material from the Scriptures, but must also: 
accept at the hands of the Bible the order in which this 
material is to be grouped and located. & g, Paul’s views 
concerning the historic organism of the Oid Testament 
economy are authoritative for us as believers in inspiration 
and invaluable for us as students in Biblical Theology. 

The name Biblical Theology is open to serious objections : 
1.) It is too wide. Apart from so called Natural Theology 
all Theology rests on the Scriptures and may in this sense 
be called Biblical. 2.) If it be said that the adjective Biblical 
is not meant in this sense, but refers to Theology as it is 
found in the Bible, we reply: a.) that in the scientific sense 
there is no Theology in the Bible. The contents of the Bible 
are to the work of Theology, what the realities of creation 
are to the secular sciences, material to operate upon, not 
science itself. The utmost that can be conceded would be 
that in the Apostolic teaching of the New Testament the 
first signs of theological thinking are discernible. There is. 
no “History of Dogmaties for Biblical Times”; b) that 
Theology in the sense of practical, subjective appropriation 
of the revealed knowledge of God by fallible men, is indeed 
found in the Bible, but cannot as such belong to Biblical 
Theology, because it has already found its place and must 
ever find its place in Sacred History; c.) that even if we 
conceded the right to make of the latter a separate science,. 
there would not be sufficient data in the Bible to construct 
a continuous history of the growth of subjective religious. 
thought. The truth is that the Scriptures were not meant 
to make provision for that and we cannot extract it from 


18 


them. 3.) The name is incongruous because it is not ad- 
justed to the other terms of our nomenclature. We speak 
of Exegetical Theology, Historical Theology, Systematic 
Theology, Practical Theology; how then can we all at once 
name a subdivision of one of these departments Biblical 
Theology? All this ambiguity and looseness of speech is 
avoided by the name History of Revelation, which expresses 
precisely the specific character of our science and fits into 
the scientific theological terminology. Even when meant in 
a harmless sense, the name Biblical Theology has wrought 
serious harm by its misleading character. 

The practical advantages of the study of Biblical Theology. 
1.) It exhibits the organic growth of the truth of special 
revelation and its organic structure resulting therefrom. This 
is of twofold advantage: a.) It explains to us the meaning 
and relative importance of the single elements of truth. If 
the truth be a living organism its parts and their functions 
can be understood only from the organic knowledge of the 
whole; b) it has apologetic value. The organic develop- 
ment of revelation traced in the Bible bears exactly the 
same relation to Supernaturalism, as the argument from 
design bears to Theism. 2.) Biblical Theology furnishes an 
antidote to the critical views now so largely prevailing. 
These critical views do not merely oppose the opinions of 
certain theologians concerning the Bible and its origin, they 
do oppose and do confessedly oppose the views of the Bible 
itself, that is of large parts of the Bible, concerning its own 
origin. The Scriptures as a whole profess to be a historical 
organism; the historical books of the Bible represent a 
definite view of the course taken by the history of redemp- 
tion and revelation, This is not a secondary element in the 
Bible, it is its fundamental structure. The newest eritical 
theory asserts that this fundamental structure, as found in 
the historical books, is unhistorical and unreliable through- 
out. In other words, it disorganizes the Bible, and torces 
upon it another organism. Biblical Theology, by exhibiting 
the organic progress of revelation set forth by the Bible 
itself, is best qualified to show to what an extent the critical 
theory involves rejection of the Bible on a large and funda- 
mental scale. 8.) Biblical Theology imparts new life and 
freshness to the old truth by placing it in its original historic 
environment. The Bible is not a dogmatic system but a 


14 


historical book full of dramatic interest. Familiarity with 
the history of revelation will enable the student to utilize the 
realistic historical interest attaching to the truth and so to 
guard against excessively abstract presentation of the same. 
4.) Biblical Theology constantly bears witness to the high im- 
portance and indispensableness of objective knowledge of the 
truth for pure religion. It shows what infinite care God has. 
taken to reveal truth to his people, leading us to infer from 
this how much must depend on truth. 5.) Biblical Theology 
meets the charge that the fundamental doctrines of our faith 
rest on an arbitrary exposition of isolated proof texts. As. 
long as this is believed, and as long as divergent views. 
appear able to adduce an equal number of similar texts, the 
conflict between sound and false doctrine will remain unde- 
cided. But there is a higher ground on which conflicting 
systems have to meet. ‘hat system will hold the field 
which can show that its doctrines grow organically from 
the stem of revelation and are interwoven with its whole 
structure from the beginning. This our Biblical Theology 
should do for our Dogmatics. 6.) Biblical Theology con- 
tributes to keep Systematic Theology in living contact with 
the realities of act- and word-revelation, thus guarding it 
from groundless speculations. 7.) The highest practical 
aim of Biblical Theology is one it possesses independently of 
its usefulness for other sciences. It grants us a new vision 
of God and of that peculiar glory of God which attaches to 
his historical revelation. As of all Theology so of this 
special study the ultimate aim lies in God, not in man. 

The relations of Biblical Theology to other branches of the- 
ological study. 1.) Its relation to Sacred History. The two 
are closely related. Revelation follows redemption. The 
history of revelation follows the history of redemption. 
But in Sacred History also redemption is the determining 
factor. This shows that neither can be written without due 
regard to the other. The question may even arise whether 
it is possible to keep them distinct. The right of distinction 
rests on the following consideration: Redemption in its 
widest sense does two things: it creates a world of new real- 
ities, in historic succession; it creates a world of truth to 
accompany these new realities. These two lines of creative 
activity run parallel, but do not cvincide. Neither is more- 
over simply accessory to the other. We cannot say that the 


15 


truth is for the sake of the facts alone, nor that the facts are 
for the sake of the truth alone. The one is for setting man 
right in his relation to God in the sphere of being, the other 
for setting him right in his relation to God in the sphere of 
knowing. 2.) Its relation to Biblical Introduction. Biblical 
Theology presupposes the results of Introduction. We must 
approximately know when books were written and their con- 
tents revealed before we can correlate them with the contents. 
of other books and assign them their place in the plan of the 
whole. Sometimes, however, when Introduction has not 
sufficient data to determine the date of a writing, Biblical 
Theology may render it service, by showing where it would 
best fit into the gradually unfolding scheme of revelation, 
3.) Its relation to Systematic Theology. The name Biblical 
Theology has been frequently exploited to aggrandize our. 
science at the expense of Systematic Theology and to enter. 
a protest against the alleged un-Biblical character of the 
latter. There is nothing in the nature and aims of Biblical 
Theology to justify such an implication. Systematic The- 
ology can never be supplanted by it, because the two are 
different in principle. The difference lies not in this that the 
one is dependent on, the other independent of the Scriptures. 
Systematic Theology is just as much bound to the Bible as. 
Biblical Theology. Nor is the difference that Biblical The- 
ology can furnish the truths of the Bible as they are in them- 
selves, whereas Systematic Theology would make them un- 
dergo a transformation. The truth 1s that both Biblical and 
Systematic Theology operate upon the Biblical material, as 
they find it, according to a certain constructive principle. 
In Systematic Theology this principle is logical, in Biblical 
Theology it is historical. Systematic Theology endeavors. 
to construe a circle, Biblical Theology seeks to draw a line 
of development. The line is, however, like unto the line of 
upward growth in a living tree, a line consisting of a suc- 
cession of rings, each of which is more or less rounded off in 
itself. There is a degree of systematizing, even apart from 
the historical construction, in Biblical Theology also. In, 
Systematic Theology usually a distinction is drawn between 
Dogmatics and Ethics. In actual revelation, however, the 
two are so closely interwoven, that we cannot separate them 
in the history of revelation. Every distinction between 
Biblical Dogmatics and Biblical Ethics would be purely 
artificial. 


16 


The Method of Biblical Theology Two methods have 
been employed in the construction of our science, sometimes 
combined, sometimes to the exclusion of one another. They 
are the topical and the historical method. The former takes 
the topics of Systematic Theology and asks what in regard 
to each of the topics has been revealed. If this is done with- 
out all distinction of historical periods nothing but a crude 
Dogmatics will result. The historical method places emphasis 
on the principle of historical growth and seeks to show 
everywhere how the truth has been progressively revealed. 
If this is done without grouping the facts at all, it leads toa 
monotonous recital of single items and yields no real history. 
Hence the two methods should be combined. Within the 
limits of the historical periods certain general topics should 
be distinguished and of each of these the development should 
be traced. These topics, however, should not be borrowed 
indiscriminately from Systematic Theology, for some of the 
general conceptions with which the latter operates are either 
foreign to the mind of the Biblical writers, or at least belong 
to a particular stage of revelation. The general heads under 
which the elements of truth are grouped are to be taken as 
much as possible from the range of thought of the writers 
themselves and of their time. # g., the idea of the cove- 
nant is an idea familiar to revelation itself in almost all its 
stages. So is that of the kingdom of God. Nevertheless in 
some stages these ideas are more prominent than in others. 
On the other hand, to discuss the Biblical material from the 
point of view of an abstract topic like justification would be 
an unhistoric proceeding. Again, in the treatment of Pauline 
revelation justification as a topic is in its place. Still other 
topics belong entirely to the post-Biblical development of 
theological thought. This does not mean that they are 
without foundation in the Scriptures, but only that as formal, 
unified doctrines they do not occur there, the elements of 
truth that are now dogmatically crystallized in them lying 
scattered in the Bible in various quarters. But not only the 
topics within the historical periods are to be adjusted to the 
stage of revelation, the periods themselves must be deter- 
mined not according to any modern view of history, but in 
agreement with the immanent historic consciousness of the 
Bible itself. #. g,, the Bible divides the history of redemp- 
tion into a succession of covenants. Biblical Theology has 


17 


' 


to recognize this division in its fundamental importance, and 
should not allow it to be obliterated by any critical construc- 
tion of a totally different development in which prophetism 
would come before the law. Within the limits of this com- 
bination of the historical and topical methods there is still 
a wide scope for divergence. The chief problem is how the 
individual peculiarities of the single writers shall receive just 
recognition. These individual traits subserve the historic 
plan “and as such are of vital importance. Accordingly some 
propose to discuss each author separately. This, however, 
leads, where the differentiation is not extremely developed, 
to much repetition of the elements which all authors have 
incommon, The better plan isto apply a treatment accord- 
ing to groups to the earlier stages where the truth is not 
yet so strongly differentiated and to apply the principle of 
a discussion of single books to the later stages, where the 
combination of authors into groups would obliterate indi- 
vidual traits too seriously. In the group-treatment the 
statement of what is common property should be accom- 
panied with due exhibition of what the single authors have 
individually contributed to the progressive development. 

The definition of Biblical Theology as history of Bibli- 
eal religion has greatly influenced its method. Many modern 
writers begin with a discussion of the principal features of 
this religion i in distinction from other religions. ‘They con- 
sider its monotheistic principle and its ethical contents. 
This manner of introducing the subject betrays the philo- 
sophical tendency that has given rise to this whole sub- 
jectivizing treatment. Further, with many the historical 
development of Biblical religion and its doctrinal precipitate 
are separately discussed. This division is necessary if the 
object of Biblical Theology be knowledge come out of the 
life of the people; it is impossible if its object be the reveal- 
ing activity of God and its contents, both in the historic facts 
and in the verbal disclosures of truth. The facts to us come 
under consideration in two aspects only: 1.) As revelation- 
facts of a supernatural character; 2.) as events in the historic 
development of Israel influencing the course of revelation in 
its adjustment to them. In both these aspects the facts are 
so interwoven with the truth that a separate treatment of 
both would result either in repetition or in externally uniting 
into one book an inadequate and mechanical Sacred. History 
and Biblical Theology. 


18 


The Division of Biblical Theology. The idea of revela- 
tion is commonly associated with that of redemption for the 
reason that the fall coming close after the creation, nearly 
the whole course of revelation has actually taken place under 
an economy of redemption, and for the further reason that 
in redemption special revelation is everything. Neverthe- 
less this association of redemption and revelation is not 
logical or necessary. For: 1.) Revelation is wider than 
special revelation; the manifestation of God in nature, in 
creation and providence is revelation in the strict sense of the 
term. What we learn from nature, at least would learn 
apart from sin, are not scattered observations or inferences, 
but a coherent knowledge of God, perfect and harmonious 
in its kind. God has intentionally so created nature and 
intentionally so governs it as to make it a speech to us. 
Hence the theologians speak of the two books, the one of 
nature, the other of the Scriptures, a figure which aptly 
describes the natural world as a pre- arranged medium of 
communicating truth concerning God. 4%.) Special revela- 
tion itself is wider than redemptive revelation. There were 
special communications of truth from God to man before the 
fall under the covenant of works. God is represented as 
speaking to man. The distinction between God’s dealings 
with the race before and after the fall is a distinction 
between works and grace, not to be confounded with the dis- 
tinction between general and special revelation. All this 
makes it necessary to point out in general the relation 
between revelation in the wider and in the narrower sense. 
1.) Special revelation cannot be discussed in Biblical Theol- 
ogy without reference to the self-disclosure of God in 
nature, both within man and without man. General revela- 
tion remains the basis of special revelation. The Scriptures 
constantly presuppose that which still remains known of 
God, notwithstanding the darkening influence of sin, and 
attach their disclosures to it. 2.) Special revelation not 
merely adds to the knowledge acquired from nature, but 
it transforms and purifies the latter. It is to be observed 
that only under the influence of the truth as known 
from special revelation has an adequate sense of God’s 
self-disclosure in the natural world been revived. In the 
Bible we find the best interpretation of nature and history; 
it is Christianity under the influence of the Bible that has 


—— ee, a 


A, 


produced the scientific -embodiment of this knowledge 
which is called Natural Theology. 3.) Even apart from 
special grace, God has made provision by common 
grace to prevent this natural basis from being utterly 
destroyed by sin. Common grace as exemplitied in the 
covenant with Noah (Gen, LX, 1-17) is itself of supernatural 
origin, but its aim is to perpetuate the natural order of the 
universe, physical and ethical, by restraining sin. Here then 
we have special revelation entering into the natural world 
and becoming a part of it. 4,) Sin entering has a threefold 
effect: it subjectively obscures the mind of man in his per- 
ception of natural revelation; it transforms the latter ob- 
jectively so that instead of a revelation of love it becomes a 
revelation of wrath, Rom. [,18; it renders a new special 
revelation necessary. 5.) The new features in this special 
revelation concern partly its subject-matter, partly its form. 
As to the latter: revelation partakes more of the uncommon 
and fearful, because the separation between God and man 
is felt more keenly in the same proportion that God comes 
personally nearer to man to communicate with him directly. 
To sinless man such communication is perfectly natural. 
Further, revelation assumes a more external form, because 
it becomes attached not merely to the general covenant- 
fellowship between God and man, but to ‘the specific work 
of redemption, and this work necessarily assumes first of all 
an objective, external form. The center of redemption lies 
in the incarnation and the work of the Incarnate Christ and, 
corresponding with this, revelation assumes the character of 
an external, abiding Word of God embodied in the Scriptures. 
Neither for the incarnation nor for the formation of the 
Scriptures would there have been any necessity, if sin had 
not entered. In regard to subject-matter, special revelation 
as adjusted to the fact of sin and of redemption has two new 
elements: it discloses to us the divine grace, his love of 
sinners and, in a more emphatic sense than revelation in 
nature does, his punitive justice, and involves an inter- 
pretation of all the acts of God in which grace and justice 
are embodied. Besides this it interprets all the subjective 
changes which the redemption of man requires. Special 
revelation instructs those who experience the work of grace 
concerning the nature of this work, and for this likewise 
there was no necessity apart from sin. 


20 


The first division in the history of special revelation, 
then, is that between what precedes and what follows the 
fall. The history of redemptive revelation cannot be under- 
stood without a preliminary discussion of revelation under 
the covenant of works. Notwithstanding the great difference 
between them, there are fundamental principles which the 
two schemes have in common. This will appear from the 
fact that the Bible, though to ail intents a record of redemp- 
tive revelation, yet opens with a sketch of the self-disclosure 
of God before the fall. 

In regard to the redemptive stage of revelation the main 
division is that between the Old and the New Covenant. 
The term covenant is to be preferred to that of testament. 
The R. V. has in most places rightly substituted covenant 
for the testament of the A. V. Except perhaps in Heb. rx, 
16, 17, another meaning than that of covenant cannot be 
established for Biblical Greek. But the Latin translation 
rendered the Greek dcafyxyn bv testamentum and this gave 
currency to the term testament. The phrases Old Covenant 
and New Covenant are found in II Cor. 111, 6, 14; Heb. viur, 
13; 1x, 15; x11, 24, and in the first passage even the sense 
of a covenant deposited in writing seems to be in the mind 
of the Apostle. Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant which 
will take the place of the old Ch. xxx1, 31, and our Lord in 
the words of institution of the supper lhkewise of a new 
covenant. The one passage in Paul excepted, these sayings do 
not refer to a body of writings, but to a historic dispensation 
of redemption. It is to be observed moreover that they do 
not contrast the new dispensation introduced by Christ with 
the whole old dispensation of the covenant of grace from 
Paradise onward, but only with the covenant as concluded 
at Sinai. The old covenant is the Sinaitic covenant in the 
mind of these writers, not what goes before. Nevertheless 
the extension of the name old covenant to the whole period 
before the advent rests on a Scriptural basis, because the 
Bible discusses the pre-Mosaic period of redemption and of 
revelation under the aspect only of a preparation for the 
Sinaitic covenant, and not for its own sake. Note the Scrip- 
tural terminology which speaks of old covenant and new 
covenant, whereas dogmatically we are accustomed to speak 
of the old and new dispensation of the one covenant of grace. 
Each is correct from its own standpoint, Dogmaties in plac- 


21 


ing itself above the temporal aspect of things and recogniz- 
ing in both periods the unveiling of the same eternal decree 
of salvation; the Biblical writers, who stand in the midst 
of the historic movement and carry it onward, in emphasiz- 
ing the relative newness and distinctness of the final revela- 
tion of God in Christ. 

Our conception of Biblical Theology limits 1ts sources 
to the Canonical Scriptures. What lies between the two 
canons cannot come under consideration, because it is not 
revelation. From the point of view of most modern writers, 
who make Biblical Theology describe a subjective religious 
development, there is no reason to exclude the Apocrypha. 
The subjective development of religion went on after the last 
prophet as before. Hence some writers include the Apocry- 
phal books. This becomes all the more necessary, since the 
new critical views make important sections of the canonical 
O. T. as late as the date of the Apocrypha, so that there is no 
longer any distinction as to date. The claim that the Apocry- 
pha represent a stage in the development of Israel, during 
which religion was no longer active, growing, independent, 
will be difficult to prove, and from the subjective standpoint 
this claim can be upheld with equal force in regard to some 
of the canonical books. The truth is that on this modern 
principle there is no place for drawing a line between what 
is canonical and extra-canonical, The exclusion of the extra- 
canonical writings does not imply that Biblical Theology has 
nothing to learn from them. They portray the religious 
history of Israel between the two covenants. This religious 
history in more than one sense determined the character and 
course of N. T. revelation. #. g., it is impossible to under- 
stand Pau! and his work without a thorough study of Juda- 
ism. Modern criticism obliterates still other important 
boundary-lines within the limits of the canonical books. 
Following the Bible we must distinguish between Patri- 
archal, Mosaic, Prophetic revelation. The critics maintain 
that no historic records of the Patriarchal period are in 
existence, and that we know next to nothing concerning the 
religious development of that time. The figures of the 
Patriarchs are not historic personalities but legendary 
characters created to express the consciousness of relation- 
ship between the various Shemitic tribes or idealisations of 
the national character as it existed afterwards. As to the 


22 


Mosaic period, the Pentateuch and its codes being considered 
later than most of the Prophetic writings, there is no longer 
any distinction between this and Prophetism. Hence noth- 
ing remains but the development of Israel’s religion from 
the time of early. Prophetism onward, and the whole beauti- 
ful organism of the three great Biblical periods is destroyed. 


Il. Sprcrat IntrRopuction to PrRopHetTic REVELATION. 


The term Prophet is used in the Bible with a certain 
degree of latitude. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
describes the whole revelation of the Old Covenant as a 
revelation through prophets, I. 1. Abraham is called a 
prophet by God in his revelation to Abimelech, Gen. xx, 7. 
In Ps. cv, 15, all the patriarchs are so designated. Moses is 
pre-eminently the ideal prophet according to Numb. x11, 6. 
On the other hand, the customary division of the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures into law and prophets, followed by our Lord, 
shows how the term lrophets is restricted elsewhere to the 
post- Mosaic organs of revelation and stands fora part of the 
Scriptures forming an organism by itself. Cfr. for the double 
sense Acts 111, 21, ‘“ Whereof God spake by the mouth of 
his holy prophets, which have been since the world began,” 
with vs. 24, ‘All the prophets from Samuel and them that 
followed after.” It is clear, then, that in one sense all Old 
Testament organs of revelation are prophets, and that in 
another sense prophetism assumes a more specific form, be- 
comes a new institution in the theocracy since the time ot 
Samuel. | 

This double aspect of prophecy is reflected in the names 
the prophets bear. The most general name is 8°33 and this 
is applied to all Old Testarnent messengers of God in the 
widest sense, although historically it seems to have come 
first into use when prophetism as a specific institution arose. 
The derivation and original meaning of Nabhi have been 
subjects of much controversy. The points in dispute are: 
1.) Whether the form Nabhi is active, passive or intransitive ; 
2.) What is the original meaning of the root of which Nabhi 
is a derivative. The following views have been defended : 

I. The derivation proposed by Hupfeld from an assumed 
root 823 coinciding in origin and meaning with the root ox) 
(cfr. Ne’um Jehovah “oracle of Jehovah.) Nabhi then 


23 


would be a passive form, literally ‘‘one who is oracled into.” 
Riehm and Schultz have adopted this view. The objections 
to it are: 1.) The identification of the two roots is precar- 
ious, because it assumes at the same time the interchange of 23 
and 1 and the transposition of the two last radicals; 2.) it is 
artificial to give the verb a personal object. The passive par- 
ticiple of such a verb would naturally mean ‘“ that which is 
oracled,” the oracle itself and not the one who receives it. 

II. Many connect Nabhi and its root x3) with the verbs 
333, 23, 32) all meaning “to spring, to gush forth.” Cfr. Ps. 
xIxX, 2 and Lxxvil, 2. The defenders of this view divide on 
the question whether Nabhi.be an active or a passive form. 
Keil and Redslob favor the passive sense explaining Nabhi 
as ‘‘the one gushed or poured upon.” The Spirit, it is said, 
was compared to a fluid and the prophet under its influence 
as baptized with it. Oehler and others give a different turn 
to the passive meaning making it ‘‘ one who is spoken through 
by the Deity.” The active interpretation is favored by 
Kuenen who says: ‘So the prophet was probably called 
from the impression his manner of acting produced; his 
violent gesticulations, the rushing torrent of his speech re- 
minded of a spring violently gushing forth.” Against the 
passive rendering of the word on this view it must be urged, 
that the verbs meaning “ to gush or spring forth ” are intran- 
sitives and cannot naturally take an object in the Qal species. 
Kuenen’s explanation makes too much of the element of 
violent gushing torth, which does not belong to the verbs as 
such. 

Iff. A peculiar derivation has been proposed by some 
Jewish scholars (Witsius, Miscellanea Sacra I, 3) and more 
recently by Land. Nabhi is by them connected with the © 
verb xia ‘“‘ to enter in.” It is considered the Niphal Participle 
of this verb ‘‘ one who has been entered in,” that 1s hy the 
breath or spirit of the Deity. But in such a designation the 
more important part ‘ by the Spirit of God” would have to 
be supplied. If the phrase “* Nabhi of the Spirit of Jehovah” 
occurred, the explanation might be accepted for reason of 
its simplicity, but it does not occur (cfr. however Ezek. 
mie) 

IV. The best view is that of Ewald, Fleischer, Konig 
and others, who make Nabhi the active participle of a root 
2) which still exists in Arabic in the sense ‘to speak.” 


24 


The prophet is so cailed because he is the speaker of 
Jehovah. It is both the manner in which he receives his 
communications from God and the announcement of them 
to others, but especially the latter, which is described by the 
name. It may be objected, that on this view also the more 
important part of the meaning, viz., that the Nabhi is a 
speaker of God, must be supplied. This objection, however, 
is not fatal. The Greek word mooyntnc (see below) here 
offers an analogy. And here the combinations Nabhi Jeho- 
vah, Nabhi?Baal, do actually occur. Exod. tv, 16 is an im- 
portant passage for determining the Biblical conception of 
the prophet. Here Moses is represented as God to Pharao 
and Aaron as Moses’ mouth. But in Ch. vir, 1 the same 
thought is thus expressed: Moses God to Pharaoh and 
Aaron Moses’ prophet. This implies that prophet = mouth 
of God. 

Our English word prophet is derived from the Latin 
propheta which in turn is the Latinized form of the Greek 
mzoogytyc. The latter is a compound of zoo and the noun 
ae from gy, which means to speak, but is especially used 

omer, Herodotus, the Tragoedians of the divine speech 
of revelation. The force of the preposition zo in the Greek 
word is not that which we commonly ascribe to it in our 
English word prophet. It does not relate to time and to the 
element of prediction, but has a local force. The zpogyrn¢ 
is either the one who speaks for or stands before the oracle to 
interpret its enigmatic sayings, or else the one who speaks 
forth what the oracle communicates to him. Plato e. g., in 
the Timaeus draws a distinction in this sense between the 
pavtec or oracle-giver and the zoogyry¢ or interpreter. 

The other names for prophet are more expressive of the 
character of prophetism in the narrower sense as a specific 
institution for the disclosure of truth since the days of 
Samuel. Prophetism proper, as a new factor in revelation, 
arose in connection with certain developments in the history 
of Israel. Ifin general revelation follows redemption, the 
appearance of a new and influential movement in the sphere 
of the former must find its explanation in important events 
in the sphere of the latter. Prophecy is not abstract preach- 
ing, but attaches itself to concrete facts, which may either 
belong to the past or to the future. In its hortative as well 
as in its predictive character it plants itself upon the basis 


25 


of history. The prophets advocated no purely ideal con- 
struction of things lacking contact with reality, but the en- 
forcement and perfection of what had been in principle 
realized, or was beginning to be realized among Israel. 
The development of prophetism divides itself into two periods 
distinguished by the manner in which the prophetic word 
attaches itself either to the old realities of the past or to the 
new realities of the future. Besides this close association 
with historical conditions and events, prophetism at its 
various stages more or less assumes a realistic character in 
itself, by symbolically and typically embodying the truths it 
proclaimed in its own life. 

1.) The historic basis of prophetism in the past. The 
fundamental passages are Deut. xi, 1-5; xvi, 9-22. 
Divination, augury, enchantments, sorcery, etc., are for- 
bidden, because there will be no need of these, Jehovah 
promising to raise up a prophet from the midst of the people 
to whom they may hearken. The whole succession of 
prophets is referred to. The Messianic import of this pas- 
sage is certainly not its primary sense. But no prophet, 
though he give signs or wonders, is to be heard, if he 
preach against the former commandments of Jehovah. The 
covenant mediated by Moses remains the norm of all sub- 
sequent prophetic teaching. 1.) Prophecy must apply and 
enforce the principles of Mosaism in the varying circum- 
stances and situations of national life. It simply maintains 
and watches over established institutions. The distinction 
between law and prophecy in this sense is not strongly 
marked. The law itself, especially in Deuteronomy, con- 
tains a prophetic element inasmuch as it not merely com- 
mands for the present, but provides for future contingencies. 
2.) Prophecy is to warn and threaten in the danger of in- 
fidelity to the covenant-obligations on I[srael’s part, and to 
announce the judgment and call to repentance in case of 
actual apostasy. This function of prophecy also has been 
anticipated by the law. In Lev. xxvr and Deut. xxvitt, a 
possible breach of the covenant is assumed and the evils in- 
separable therefrom are described at Jength. In regard to 
the latter point, however, a distinction must be made 
between the pre-canonical prophets and the canonical 
prophets. The former warn and threaten and eall to re- 
pentance under the supposition, that conversion without 


26 


total rejection of Israel and by a return to the old is still 
possible; the latter recognize the inevitable character of the 
judgment of destruction for the majority. In so far this 
denunciatory function pertains even more to prophetism as 
a herald of new realities than as merely vindicating the old. 

These two retrospective functions characterize prophet- 
ism in the first period of its development from Samuel up 
to Joel, Amos, Hosea. They are less prominent in the 
later development of canonical prophetism. The distinction 
between retrospective and prospective prophecy is, however, 
not an absolute one, The elements pointing to a new future 
were at work in prophetism from the beginning and the 
appeal to the historic law of the covenant was never silenced. 
The only difference lies in the stress placed in the successive 
periods upon each of these elements. 

The relation of prophetism to the future developments in the 
history of redemption. Redemption as embodied in the events 
of the Mosaic period and in the Mosaic institutions, was not 
the final realization of the divine purpose. It bore a pro- 
visional character and was intended to be followed by other 
events and other institutions on a higher plane. The theo- 
cratic lite of Israel was not permitted to run a quiet and 
uneventful course, but new crises and new conditions were 
constantly created by God, to call out and bring to conscious- 
ness, the inherent limitations and inadequacies of the Mosaic 
eovenant and of life under it, thus to make room for the 
development of the new out of the old. Prophecy accompa- 
nies the recurring crises and the newly-arising conditions to 
announce and interpret them. Hence, side by side with its 
historic and conservative features, prophecy bears the char- 
acter of a progressive revelation, ever pressing forward, a 
continual ferment in the covenant life of Israel. These 
changes, prophetic of new and higher things, were produced 
partly by the force of expansion inherent in the Mosaic cove- 
nant itself. Such a change e. g., was the institution of the 
human kingdom. Toa greater extent, however, they were 
produced in a more violent way, by influences of a radical 
and revolutionary character, which threatened to destroy the 
Mosaic institutions, instead of developing them. Influences of 
this kind were the national apostasy of Israel, the division 
of the tribes into two kingdoms, the advance and attack of 
the great monarchies of the East. To both these classes of 


27 


changes prophecy attaches itself, and both were, historically 
speaking, necessary to create the beginnings of a new order 
of things out of the old. The former ciass would of itself have 
yielded only a higher and perfected Mosaism. But the new 
covenant is not merely a perfection of the old, it is something 
new substituted for the old, the body replacing the type. Hence 
such changes were required as betokened the destruction of 
the historic forms in which the covenant had hitherto been 
embodied, It will be observed that the new conditions of 
the former class, though important in themselves and pro- 
ductive of prophetic activity from the outset, yet obtained 
their full significance and became the theme of a richer and 
more progressive prophetic revelation only after they were 
viewed in the light of the more radical changes and critical 
conditions of a later day. EK. g., the institution of the human 
kingdom in Saul, David, Solomon, gives rise to Messianic 
prophecy, but Messianic prophecy does not show the full 
possibility of its development, until the crisis in the national 
life of the vith century B. C., stimulates it to renewed 
activity. While considering both classes of events separ- 
ately, we must remember that they constantly interacted. 

It will be seen from this that the prospective element is 
essential to prophecy. Once the tendency was to emphasize 
this element to an undue extent and in a mechanical man- 
ner, so as to make the prophet a foreteller of isolated future 
events in their concrete definiteness. No doubt there are 
instances of such concrete, definite prediction in the pro- 
phetic writings, but, while of great value for Apologetics, 
these instances do not impart its main significance to pro- 
phetic revelation even inits prospective function. The otber 
extreme is to make the prophet a mere preacher of moral 
and religious truth, considering the predictive feature as 
altogether secondary and unessential. This tendency, largely 
prevailing at the present time, is just as unhistorical as the 
opposite view. The truth is that prophecy in a broad way 
accompanies with its message the development of the future 
out of and in contrast with the present and past. Taken 
in this sense of organic prediction, concerned not so much 
with single events as with large developments, the announce- 
ment of the future will be found to occupy a much larger 
place in the prophetic writings than modern ideas lead one 
to expect. ‘The prophets are designated as ‘ watchmen” 


28 


DD'¥y or o'Bx¥D from this prospective function of their office. 
Sometimes the figure involves no more than the spiritual 
supervision of the people. Cfr. Jer. v1, 17; Ezek. 111, 17. 
Elsewhere, however, the prophet is represented as watching 
for the new developments which the carrying out of Jeho- 
vah’s counsel involves; Is. xx1, 11,12; Hab. 1, 1. Inas- 
much as the prophet is the representative of Jehovah, this 
watching is predicated of Jehovah Himself. Jer. xxx1, 28; 
XLIv, 27. Under a different figure the same idea is ex- 
pressed when the prophetic word is compared to a living plant 
or tree to indicate that it produces ever new developments, 
just as the new things that Jehovah works are said “‘to spring 
font, eile Se Bo UR LIAO sx La at os Ute bb, 

1) The first advance beyond the Mosaic conditions in 
the history of Israel to which prophecy attached itself was 
theinstitution of the kingdom. In the theocracy no provision 
was made for an executive as Moses himselfhad been. The 
kingship of Jehovah had no visible embodiment in a vice- 
gerent ruling over the people. The inadequate realization 
of the kingdom of Jehovah in the national life of Israel led 
to all the misery of the period of the judges. A represent- 
ative of Jehovah was wanted to organize and lead Israel in 
the wars with the Canaanitish tribes and the surrounding 
nations. Cfr. Jud. v, 7,11. The rule of judges was of a 
temporary intermittent character. Permanent relief was 
created in the human kingdom of Saul and afterwards of Da- 
vid. Itis true, Israel desired this kingdom from sinful 
motives; nevertheless Jehovah’s granting it proves that the 
human kingship is consistent with the divine, and can be 
employed in the history of redemption to foreshadow the 
perfect realization of the latter. The institution, then, of the 
human kingdom and, through it, the subjugation of Israel’s 
enemies is the first great outstanding fact in Sacred History 
after the Mosaic epoch. Its significance may be measured 
by this that henceforward the idea of the kingdom remains 
the central idea of all hopes of Israe!, the highest ideal 
possession in which the better spirits of Israel rejoiced. The 
beginning of prophetic activity in the narrower sense 
through Samuel coincides with this institution of the human 
kingdom, or, strictly speaking, with the theocratic revival, 
which resulted in the liberation and ascendancy of Israel, 
for whose accomplishment the kingdom was the chosen 


29 


instrument of God. But not merely at its beginning did 
the kingdom give rise to prophetic revelation. The human 
kingdom could be an instrument of salvation only in so far 
as it was perfectly representative of Jehovah and did not in 
any respect belie its representative character. This perfec- 
tion the kings of united Israel and later of Judah never 
attained. There remained a wide distance between the 
idea and the reality. Hence it was seen that the first king- 
dom was not the final embodiment of Jehovah’s rule. The 
true kingdom is projected into the future. Messianic prophecy 
attaches itself to the experience of the imperfections of the 
present and the resulting expectation of a perfect represent- 
ative of Jehovah in a new era. 

2.) A second impulse prophetic revelation received 
from the contact between Israel and the Gentile nations. 
This contact was largely a hostile one. Nevertheless even 
so the extension of Jehovah’s rule over the neighboring 
peoples gave rise as early as the time of David to revela- 
tions of universalistic import. The subjugation of all the 
earth to the Davidic house is a prophetic promise attach- 
ing itself to the great conquests David had made. 
Canonical prophecy later took up these predictions and 
further developed them. The first canonical prophets 
clothe this idea in the same form which it had acquired in’ 
David’s time, that of external, warlike conquest. Soin 
Obadiah, Joel, partly even in Amos and Hosea. The reason 
was that the Israelites had not yet come in contact with 
nations whose gigantic power excluded the thought of 
external conquest. A new historical situation had to be 
created to introduce the idea of a higher, spiritual submis- 
sion of the nations to Jehovah. This historical situation 
arose on the appearance of the great Eastern powers, Assyria 
and Babel. From Isaiah onward universalistic prophecy 
enters upon this new development. These Eastern powers 
claimed world-wide dominion and over against this revela- 
tion posits the idea of a universal kingdom of Jehovah, to 
be founded on voluntary surrender to Israel’s God rather 
than to Israel itself. A third impulse was given to uni- 
versalistic prophecy by the expulsion of the ten tribes from 
their land and the threatening deportation of the Judeans. 
This led to dissociating the worship to be brought by 
the Gentiles to Jehovah from Jerusalem and the temple. 


30 


Cir. Zeph. 11, 11; 11,9. It appears, then, that in respect 
to its great message of the extension of the true religion to: 
the Gentiles, prophetism was determined by critical events. 
ingihe history of the covenant people. The prophetic 
promise of the removal of one of the chief limitations of the 
Mosaic redemption attaches itself to important changes in 
the condition of Israel. 

3.) The third and most important fact which called 
forth a new development of prophecy was the well-nigh 
total apostasy of Israel and the consequent inevitably 
threatening destruction of the existing form of the cov- 
enant. As. pointed out above all prophetic preaching in- 
volves the rebuke of sin. But this element in itself does. 
not become an element of progress until the truth is 
grasped that sin had advanced too far to leave room for 
return by simple repentance. The judgment is now re- 
cognized as the only means of regeneration. How im- 
portant this recognition was for the history of prophetism 
may be seen from the fact that it has determined the devel- 
opment of pre-canonical into canonical prophecy. The usual 
way of formulating the distinction as one between prophets 
of action and prophets of the word is not entirely correct, 
The earlier prophets, like Samuel and Nathan, made use of 
the word likewise, though not to the same extent as the later 
ones. The difference lies in this that the word of the later 
prophets from the former half of the vitth century onwards 
was committed to writing and made permanent, whereas 
with the earlier prophets it remained a spoken and transient 
word. The word of the pre-canonical prophets related to 
the present; that of the canonical prophets belonged to the 
future, because it bore in itself the germs of truth of ever- 
lasting significance. Kuenen thinks, the prophets about this 
time resorted to writing, because they had abandoned all 
hope of obtaining a hearing with their cotemporaries and 
hence naturally turned to posterity. This rests on Kuenen’s 
view, that the prophets of the vri1th century had made such 
rapid progress towards ethical monotheism as to leave the 
rest of the people far behind. But this explanation is un- 
satisfactory. What guarantee had the prophets that sub- 
sequent generations would be more disposed to hear them ? 
To ascribe to them the idea of historical evolution would be 
an obvious anachronism. The prophets wrote because they 


31 


felt the time was coming in which the old would be 
destroyed to make way for something new, and because they 
wished their word to stand as a witness to the continuity 
between the old and the new. They first instinctively 
grasped the idea of a history of redemption and revelation, 
Hence we find that their literary activity is not confined to 
the preservation of spoken oracles, but extends likewise to 
sacred historiography. 

The influence of this crisis on prophecy may be traced 
along the following lines: 1.) It has developed the idea of 
the national covenant between Jehovah and Israel in a more 
individualistic direction. The Sinaitic covenant was in the 
first place a national covenant. In this national form, how- 
ever, the covenant was inseparable from the existing polit- 
ical structure of the theocracy. The latter collapsing in judg- 
ment, those faithful to Jehovah were unavoidably led to 
reflect more upon their individual relation to Jehovah, and 
to conceive of it as to some extent separable from the 
national covenant, inasmuch as they continued to know 
and serve Him, while the nation was rejected. Prophecy 
distinctly assumes a more individualistic tone since the time 
of Hosea. In Jeremiah this is most pronounced. 2.) Along- 
side with this runs the growing recognition that the typical 
and external forms of the theocracy are inadequate for the 
highest service of Jehovah. There was a deepening sense 
of sin, which the typical sacrificial system could no longer 
allay. The sacrifices were effective on the basis of the 
covenant only and it was felt that the covenant had been 
broken. Hence the prophetic polemic against reliance on 
the external cult. With the breaking down of the cere- 
monial system, communion with Jehovah bound to ap- 
pointed times and places and mediations, was no longer 
possible. In its predictions of a spiritual and direct com- 
munion prophecy announced the removal of an inherent 
limitation of the Sinaitic covenant which had been accentu- 
ated by the peculiar conditions of general apostasy. 3.) It 
was recognized that the same causes which had brought 
about the ruin of the external theocracy, would operate 
with the same effect in the future, unless a new creation of 
Jehovah so changed the people as to guarantee the stability 
of the covenant. ‘The need of regenerating grace was more 
deeply felt and, in response to this, prophetic revelation 


32 


promised a new order of things in which the law would be 
written on the heart. God will make such a covenant that 
future apostasy is forever excluded. 

It is to be observed that while making these bold dis- 
closures of a future perfect state, prophecy did not place 
itself in opposition to, nor even loosened its connection with 
the law. Prophetism was not a revolutionary but a thor- 
oughly historic movement. The law itself, while conditional 
in one respect, contained absolute promises in another 
respect. The Sinaitic covenant itself was a creation of God’s 
free and sovereign grace, irrespective of Israel’s desert, and 
is so far the principle on which it rested, left room for a new 
adoption, after the breach of the covenant on Israel’s part. 
Here was a historic basis on which prophecy could stand in 
predicting a new and better dispensation, after the judg- 
ment of casting out. In prophecy, notwithstanding its 
intensely ethical character, there is an element of absolute- 
ness. Some of its promises may be conditional, others are 
not. As to the protest of prophecy against ceremonialism, 
this proceeded from the most profound respect for the law, 
because only on the basis of an acceptable covenant-status 
did the law make the ceremonial system effective. 

The typical adumbration of coming realities in the life of 
prophecy itself. The chief significance of prophecy lies in its 
being the organ of verbal revelation. The word is its great 
instrument. But by its very existence and nature also, as an 
institution within the theocracy, prophecy anticipated and 
embodied future realities. Prophecy was a favor as well as 
a service. In this respect the following features should be 
noticed: 1.) Corresponding with its rebuke of sin and its 
calling back to the observance of the covenant, prophecy 
symbolizes in its own life the necessity of repentance. As 
such it bore somewhat of an ascetic character. Its outward 
appearance was sometimes austere, as we see in Elijah. The 
prophets are placed on a line with the Nazirites for the same 
reason, Amos 11,10, 11. 2.) The future universalism of 
the knowledge of Jehovah has found typical expression at 
least in the history of Jonah. Cfr. also Luke tv, 25-27. 
3.) The individualism of religion foretold by the prophets 
was illustrated in the intimate relation of the prophets 
themselves to Jehovah. The prophet calls Jehovah “ my 
God.” Hosea 1x, 8,17; Joel 1,18; Mic. vit, 17; Hab. 1, 12. 


33 


Also“*myLord,’: Is. 1x, 7; x; l230xx1, 6. eSome; suppose 
that the common use of the form Adonaj in address to 
Jehovah, in which the force of the suffix is scarcely felt 
any longer, resulted from the prophetic manner of speech. 
4.) The more spiritual communion with Jehovah, and the 
higher plane of religion promised for the new covenant 
generally, are distinctly foreshadowed in the endowments of 
the prophetic office. The prophets, for receiving their 
revelations, stood in direct intercourse with Jehovah, an 
intercourse not mediated by any external agencies. This 
was a form of communion higher than had yet been attained 
among Israel, something by which the whole people felt 
honored. As soon as the word of Jehovah became scarce, 
Israel felt that something was wanting. The silence of 
prophecy was interpreted to mean a withdrawal of Jeho- 
vah’s favor, Amos vill, 11,12. Ilence the constant com- 
plaint in the captivity, that there is no vision, no prophecy 
from Jehovah, Lam. 11, 9; Ps. txxiv, 9. The prophet is 
called & man of the Spirit, ” Hosea i 7, not merely because 
the Spirit is the organ of revelation, but likewise because 
He is the medium of close communion with Jehovah. 
Moses wishes that all God’s people were prophets, ‘ that 
Jehovah would put his Spirit upon them,’ Numb. xt, 29. 
Joel foretells that the chief blessing of the Messianic era 
ee consist in a making common of “prophecy i in this sense, 

28. Jeremiah promises that under the new covenant all 
eral know Jehovah, as at that time only the teachers of Israel 
knew Him. xXxXxI, 34; efr. Hebr. vit1, 11. Prayer is con- 
nected with prophecy. Gen. xx, 7. Nay, the bestowal of 
the prophetic gift is even described as a renewal of him who 
receives it, 1 Sam. x, 6, “‘ Thou shalt prophesy — — — and 
shalt be turned into another man”’; vs. 9, ‘“*God gave him 
another heart.” The Spirit equips the prophet with a high 
degree of spiritual strength, so that he can stand as the 
representative of a higher “righteousness in the midst of an 
unfaithful people. Mic. mi, 8. The divine word, which 
the prophet receives, is a nourishing word, strengthening 
his inner life, Jer. xv, 16. All which, of course, does not 
mean that prophetic truth was simply the necessary product 
of a higher religious experience. The reverse was the fact : 
not the higher life produced the truth, the revealed truth be- 
got the higher life. But there was special fitness in the 


34 


prophet’s thus exemplifying to a degree in his own life the 
realities of the new covenant. 

‘“* The Schools of the Prophets.”’ Probably the develop- 
ment thus called finds its explanation in the typical function 
of prophetism. The term “schools” is not Scriptural. In 
1 Sam. x, 5, Samuel speaks of ‘“‘a band of prophets.” In 
Ch. x1x, 20, we read of “the company of prophets.” After 
this these designations are not met with again. In the 
history of Ehjah, however, appear ‘‘ sons of prophets,” first 
in I Kings xx, 35, living at Bethel (11 Kings 1, 3,) at Jericho, 
(vs. 5,) and at Gilgal (1v, 88). Evidently Elijah and Elisha 
possess a certain authority over them. The only reference 
after this to *‘ the sons of prophets” is in Amos vu, 14. But 
throughout the period of canonical prophecy, side by side 
with the canonical prophets, we meet with a prophetic order 
in a more or less fixed organization. Cfr. Is. 11, 2,3; Jer. 
xvilt, 18. The canonical, prophets distinguish themselves 
from this order, and denounce them as they do kings and 
priests. In Jer. xx111, 33, these prophets are represented as 
coming to Jeremiah to enquire about the burden of Jehovah. 
This prophetic order seems to be the continuation of the 
assemblies in Samuel’s and Elijah’s period. The banding 
together of these prophets is their characteristic feature, 
wherever they appear. Various explanations have been 
offered of this phenomenon: 1.) Kuenen and other natural- 
istic critics assume that prophetism at its beginning was but 
a form of Canaanitish enthusiasm, transplanted into the soil 
of Israel. Ecstatic emotion of this kind is always dependent 
on intercourse between kindred spirits; it is contagious, and 
this would lead a the flocking together of such as wished 
to cultivate it. 2.) Others have assumed that the prophets 
gathered together for the purpose of receiving instruction 
from some accredited teacher, which instruction they were 
afterwards to propagate among the people. 3.) The correct 
view is that these assemblies constituted centers of spiritual 
life. They belong to prophecy in the wider sense as represent- 
ing a higher plane of intercourse with Jehovah. As far as 
we can observe, verbal revelation was never communicated - 
by a body of men collectively. Its instruments are always — 
individual. On the other hand, the higher spiritual life of 
the future was something that concerned the people of 
Israel as a whole. As the priestly representation of Israel 


35 


was entrusted to a tribe and family, so it was appropriate 
that an order or companies of spiritual men should typify 
the new Israel endowed with new gifts and powers. The 
Spirit was to be a joint-possession of this new Israel ; hence 
everybody coming into this prophetic circle was drawn into 
the sphere of the ‘Spirit’s operation. So e g, Saul and his 
messengers. That the prophets belonging to such bands 
exercised any systematic teaching-function is not probable 
on the face of the records. The difference between the other 
prophets like Samuel and them lay precisely in this point, 
that the former did, the latter did not receive disclosures of 
truth for communication to others. Though all these 
prophets stood under the direct influence of the Spirit and 
were supernaturally instructed, they did not carry the truth 
beyond their own immediate environment. It was simply 
intended to produce within their: private circle the higher 
spiritual life they were to represent. The wider and “nar- 
rower aspect of prophecy could, of course, be united in one 
person. Every revelation-prophet like Samuel was at the 
same time a living example of spiritual intercourse with 
God, a personal prophecy of the new covenant with its 
privileges. As such he would enter into contact with the 
wider circle of prophets. Frequently the revelation- prophets 
will have been selected also from the circle of the assembly- 
prophets. In later times the relations between the two 
classes of prophets underwent a change. Amos disclaims 
connection with the order of prophets. As the order 
degenerated it seems to have encroached upon the specifie 
functions of the revelation-prophets and to have called forth 
the open antagonism and opposition of the latter. This ex- 
plains the origin of that remarkable development on Biblical 
soil, false prophetism in the name of Jehovah. False 
prophetism was a mixture of fraud and illusion. It need 
not have been the product of conscious fraud pure and 
simple. Ifeven in the sphere of idolatry phenomena are 
witnessed which present a certain formal analogy with 
Biblical prophetism and to which a certain degree of sin- 
cerity cannot be denied, the inference is that prophetie 
intercourse with the Deity is a necessary element in all 
religion, and is instinctively simulated by man, where ob- 
jective revelation does not provide it. In the later 
times there prevailed among the apostate part of Israel a 


36 


false conception of Jehovah, and a false worship of Jehovah, 
which assimilated Him to the gods of the heathen. From 
this false conception of Jehovah, an erroneous view of 
revelation and self-deception as to reveiving personal dis- 
closures from Him were inseparable. But, as elsewhere, 
so here also to the illusion, conscious fraud inevitably 
attached itself. Even from the moral pointof view of sincerity 
it is unhistorical to place these false prophets on a line with 
the organs of true revelation, as the critics are coustantly 
endeavoring to do, with the evident aim of making prophet- 
isin resemble, as much as eal uote phenomena of 
natural religion. Cfr. Jer. xxi, 27. 

The revelation-function of prophecy in particular. The 
important question is, in how far the prophets were the 
instruments of communicating divine truth. The point 
at issue between the various theories is not in the 
first place the manner of God’s operation upon the 
prophet, but rather the character of the prophet’s utterances. 
The specific claim of the latter to be infallible expressions 
of the divine mind may be established independently or 
in connection with the mode of revelation. In ascertaining 
the opinion of the prophets themselves on this subject we 
observe: 1.) The prophets distinguished sharply between 
their ordinary course of lite ard their official life as repre- 
sentatives of Jehovah. The two were separated by a call. 
This call has been circumstantially described by Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel. It is referred to by Amos, vir, 15. 
Numerous times it is said that Jehovah sent the prophets, 
Jer, XXVI, 5; xxvitt, 9. This same term “sending” is employ- 
ed also to designate the repeated commission of a prophet 
for the deliverance of some specific message, Jer. xxv1, 15. 
But in either case the call or the commission is a momentary 
occurrence. This fact favours strongly the strictly represen- 
tative nature of the prophetic word. Had this word been 
divine in a looser sense only, as a product of the general 
operation of the Spirit, then it would have acquired this 
character of representing God gradually in dependence 
upon the prophet’s subjective condition. If the prophet be- 
comes a speaker of God at a definite point of time, then 
his words from that time onward must be taken not figur- 
atively but literally as the words of God. 2.) In many cases 
there is not merely a distinction but even an antithesis 


37 


between the natural thoughts and desires of the prophets 
and the truth they were commissioned to proclaim. The 
divine word was to them something dreaded which they 
would gladly have escaped from. But the divine command 
was so distinct and powerful that they could not resist. 
Cfr. Jer. xx, 7, 8. 3.) All the indisputable instances of 
definite prediction in the prophetic writings bear witness to 
the fact that this much at least of their message was spoken 
as a strictly divine, infallible truth. Such predictions have 
no meaning as utterances of men, they must be revelation- 
truth in the absolute sense. But the prophets make no- 
where a distinction between this particular part of their 
preaching and the other elements. Both are considered by 
them divine in the same sense. To admit the infallible 
character of these single predictions scattered through the 
prophetic writings, and to assert imperfections and mistakes 
in the other parts, is an intenable position. 4.) The divine, 
infallible character of the prophetic word is most firmly 
established by inquiring into the mode of its communication 
from God to the prophet. 

The mode of communication of the truth to the prophets. 
The divine truth is disclosed in a twofold manner. Either it 
is shown by visions which address themselves to the sight, 
or it is spoken in words which address themselves to the 
hearing of the prophet. These two forms of revelation are 
not mutually exclusive. Sometimes the vision involves 
speech and hearing, and at other times the word of revela- 
tion seems to have been interrupted by visions. 

I. Revelation by means of visions. The prophet is called 
mo and mn. Some hold that originally these names were 
expressive of the extraordinary insight into hidden things 
possessed by the prophets, and not of visions as a mode of 
receiving revelation. There is no evidence in favor of this 
view; it is held by Kuenen in connection with the theory 
that prophetism in Israel grew out of the practical sooth- 
saying of ancient times. The canonical prophets are in their 
own writings nowhere called seers, for a reason to be 
explained below. On the other hand those constituting the 
order of prophets are more than once so designated; cfr. 
PATIOS Vil, U2 lox xix LO xxx AlO Mic, tir, 7.) [fis true 
that the contents of the prophetic message are often called 
vin ‘vision,’ but this term in later times obtained a wider 


38 


meaning in which it was sy nonymous with prophetic revela- 
tion in general, whether given in audible or visible form ; 
efr. IT Sam. nigh Ogee IEE Jer. XxXvitl, 21; Hab. 1, 1. Visions 
proper are recorded of: the canonical prophets in the follow- 
ing cases: Amos vil, 1-9; vitt, 1-8; 1x, 1; Is. v1; Jer. 1 
11-13; xxiv, 1; Ezek. 1-111; viti—x1; xxxvil, 1-10; xL—-xLVu1; 
Zech. 1, 8—vi, 8. Taking the extended visions of Ezekiel 
as units, we obtain the number of tw enty-one distinct visions. 
This is a relatively-small number, and tends to disprove 
Hengstenberg’s view that visions were the constant form of 
prophetic revelation. There is evidence, however, that in 
earlier times this mode of communication was more fre- 
quently employed: 1.) According to Numb. x11, 6-8 visions 
and dreams preponderated in the ‘Mosaic time as vebicles for 
the disclosure of truth. Moses alone is singled out as repre- 
senting a higher form of revelation. Deut. xvii1, 18 prom- 
ised that later prophecy would be hke unto that of Moses. 
It is not unlikely that the resemblance included this 
very element of revelation without the aid of visions. 
2.) From 1 Sam. 1x, 9, we learn, that he who was later 
called a ‘‘ speaker ”’, Nabhi, was beforetime called in Israel 
a “seer”, Roeh. This change of name must be considered 
indicative of a change in the character of prophecy, and 
such a change is most naturally found in the transition 
from a pre- eminently visionary mode of prophecy, to one in 
which visions became the exception. When the whole 
process of revelation on its receiving as well as on its pro- 
claiming side became a process of speech, the appropriate 
name for the prophet became Nabhi, “Speaker.” 3.) This 
view explains why, while the canonical prophets never call 
themselves seers, yet the contents’ of their message are 
called visions. In an earlier time, when visions were the 
ordinary form of revelation, the term vision had become the 
general name for truth supernaturally disclosed, and this 
sense was retained after the form of revelation had changed, 
“The vision of Isaiah” simply means his prophecy irrespec- 
tive of the fact that its greater part did not come to Isaiah 
in visions. 4.) We have but few data in regard to the early 
history of prophecy, but what evidence there is tends to 
confirm this view. Balaam’s revelations all came to him 
while he was in a visionary state. For the time preceding 
Samuel, “ word of Jehovah” and “frequent vision” are 


’ 


39 


synonymous, I : Sam. m1, 1. 5.) This course of things would 
indicate a natural progress in the form of revelation from 
the more external and sensual to the more internal and 
spiritual mode. Speech and sound come nearer in their 
nature to the spiritual world than perceptible objects and 
sight. 

To determine the precise character of a prophetic vis- 
ion as differing from cognate experiences distinctions can be 
drawn: 1) As to the nature of the objects perceived. These 
objects may be: a.) realities of the supernatural world tem- 
porarily brought within the sphere of vision of the organ of 
revelation. ‘’he numerous theophanies and appearances of 
angels are examples of this. Paul speaks of ‘a man in Christ 
caught up even to the third heaven—caught up into Para- | 
dise—who heard unspeakable words ’”’; b.) reality supernat- 
urally created for the moment, usually fora symbolic purpose, 
e. g. the burning bush of Moses, the phenomena accompany- 
ing the promulgation of the Decalogue at Sinai; c) Sym- 
bolic images produced in the perception of the prophet by 
some operation upon his body or soul without a correspond- 
ing objective reality. 2.) As tothe mode of perception: a.) 
the bodily eyes may be employed in seeing the object; thus 
Elijah and Elisha saw the horses and chariots of fire II 
Kings 11,11; Paul assumes the possibility that the man in 
Christ saw the heavenly things in the body; sometimes a 
special operation upon the eye was necessary to enable it to 
see the supernatural appearances, cfr. II. Kings v1, 17; Eze- 
kiel repeatedly mentions that before his visions the hand of 
Jehovah was upon him, 1, 3,4; vitr, 2,3. Paul’s vision on the 
way to Damascus was a revelation of the real exalted Christ, 
because he puts it on a line with the appearances of the Risen 
One to the other Apostles, and yet his companions did not 
see it, Acts Ix, 7; b.) without the aid of the bodily eyes the 
soul may be made to see directly the revelation-objects 
presented to it. 

Many find the specific character of the prophetic vision 
in the combination of the features 1.) ¢ and 2.) b. To most 
cases recorded in the prophetic writings this seems to be ap- 
plicable, but a hard and fast line cannot be drawn. Noone 
can affirm that the objects seen by the prophet in the vision- 
ary state were always unreal phantasms; sometimes realities 
may have entered into the field of visionary perception. On 


40 


the other hand the Bible does not strictly exclude the cor- 
poreal vision of supernatural realities from the class of visions. 
II Cor. x11, 1,4—‘‘visions and revelations of the Lord.” Here 
as elsewhere, the Bible makes no exact classification. In 
discussing the prophetic vision in this commonly accepted 
sense, we do not deny, therefore, that other elements may 
have entered into it. 

The reality of the visionary state in the narrower sense. Its 
main feature is the direct vision by the soul of revelation- 
images. Thatsuch a direct vision, without intervention of 
the sense-organ, took place, follows from: 1.) The case of 
Balaam. Balaam describes himself as ‘‘ the man whose eye 
was closed”? and as the man ‘“ which seeeth the vision of the 
Almighty— — — having his eye open.” Numb. xxiv. 8, 4. 
The most natural interpretation is that the seer’s inner eye 
was opened, whilst his bodily eyes were closed. 2.) What 
the N. T. relates of the éxotaore accompanying the vision 
proves the suspension of all sense-perception in the body (see 
below.) 3.) Frequently the prophetic vision is mentioned 
side by side with the revelation-dream, Numb. x11, 6; Joel 
mi, 1; Dan.1,17. Now the point of comparison between 
dreams and visions seems to lie precisely in this that in both 
the soul sees things without the intervention of the bodily 
organs. The body rests, the soul is active in visions and 
dreams alike. The difference between dreams and visions 
is, that in the latter the clearness and intelligence of the wak- 
ing state are retained, whereas in the former the mental 
faculties work inorderly and dimly. Dreams occupy a much 
lower place in the seale of revelation-vehicles than visions; 
the later prophets did not receive them, whereas the false 
prophets seem to have relied on them exclusively, Jer. XX111, 
25, 32. 4.) Thesymbolic nature of the objects seen by the 
prophets in most of their visions, favors the view, that not 
the bodily but the inner eye was engaged in perceiving them. 

The psychological possibility of inner vision. Wemust re- 
member that even external seeing is, strictly speaking, not 
an act of the eye, but of the soul in response to certain im- 
pressions conveyed by the eye. The internal mental act is 
usually dependent on external processes, but is by no means 
identical with these processes. If this be so, theré is no 
imaginable reason why the soul should,if God so choose, 
not receive these same impressions, on which it usually reacts 


41 


by sight, in a different way, and respond to them in the usual 
manner. If the optic nerve, instead of receiving the impres- 
sion from an external object, were directly stimulated, the 
same nervous process would take place and the same result 
would follow. But, instead of the nerves affecting the soul, 
the impressions usually caused by them in so mysterious a 
manner, may be equally well made upon the soul directly, 
and again the result willhave to be the same. Tor both of 
these possibilities illustrations can be drawn from actual 
experience. The nerves are frequently so affected by some 
cause or condition in the body as to produce the sensation 
of seeing, an external vision, to which no reality corresponds. 
Such hallucinations of sight, though belonging to an abnor-. 
mal state, nevertheless prove the possibility of sight being 
caused in some other than the usual way. Our faculty of 
recalling images once seen and placing them with various 
degrees of vividness before our mental eye illustrates the 
second case. God, who has perfect access toall created spirits, 
can surely operate upon the prophetic mind in such a way 
as to dispense with the help of the external eye. 

The Bible furnishes no data to determine more precisely 
how the visionary sensations were produced. Nothing as 
to the actual procedure can be here determined a-priori. This 
alone we learn, from what the Bible relates about ézxoraacc, 
that frequently the operation of the sense-organs was sus- 
pended, the body appearing as if the person were in a state 
of sleep. Further than this everything is involved in ob- 
scurity. Whether the power of God operated upon the 
nervous system inwardly, or upon the soul directly we do not 
know. In either case the vision may have presented itself 
to the prophet with equal objectivity as when mediated by 
the ordinary sense. That the subjective sensation cannot have 
been greatly different from that experienced in ordinary see- 
ing seems to follow from Paul’s uncertainty as to whether his 
visions had taken place in the body or out of the body. II. 
Conall, 2. 

The visionary state on its subjective side.--The exact mental 
state of the prophet while receiving the vision has been a 
subject of long controversy. In the second century a. ¢. 
the Montanists cultivated and defended a mode of prophecy 
which rendered the prophet out of his senses. In order to 
justify the phenomena current among themselves, the Mon- 


42 


tanists claimed that the Biblical prophets had been subject 
to the same conditions. Ilence the view that in the vision- 
ary state the prophet is amens has been called the Montanist 
view. Tertullian, who sided with the Montanists, spoke of 
the amentia of the prophets. In modern times Hengstenberg 
has been the foremost defender of this opinion. In the first 
edition of his Christology this author approaches the Mon- 
tanistic extreme, while in the second edition his statements 
are more moderate, and he admits that, as between the 
Montanists and the orthodox fathers, the truth lay in the 
middle. Sometimes the Montanist view is identified with 
belief in the ecstatic state of the prophet. But éxoracc is a 
term which may be used in more than one sense, and the 
question whether the Biblical prophets were in ecstasy will 
have to be answered according to the sense in which the 
word is taken. Nothing can be interred from the few pas- 
sages where the word éxoraoc appears in Biblical Greek. 
Literally it denotes ‘(a throwing of the mind out of its nor- 
mal state.” In the Septuagint it occurs in’ two senses: 
1.) as the rendering of the Hebrew D774 *‘ a heavy torpor of 
sleep,’ Gen. 11, 21; xv, 12; 2.) in the sense of astonishment, 
dread occasioned by some extraordinary event. In classical 
Greek the word had a much stronger meaning, that of 
temporary insanity, mania. In this sense, however, it 
was not originally applied to the mania of Manticism. In 
heathen, more particularly in Greek Manticism, the inspira- 
tion from the deity was received in a semi-conscious or 
unconscious state. The Pythia at Delphi e. g. lost all con- 
trol of her own mind and body, and became the purely 
passive instrument through which the god spoke. Philo has 
first-applied the word éxorao¢ to this state of inspiration, 
and with the word has transferred this heathen conception 
to the O. T. prophets. According to Philo the voug takes 
its departure when the divine Spirit arrives in the prophet, 
because it would not be fitting for the mortal to dwell with 
the immortal. The N. T. uses the word on two occasions, 
Acts x, 10; x1, 5, of Peter at Joppa, and xxi1, 17, of Paul in 
the temple at Jerusalem. It is obvious that these two 
instances cannot clothe the Philonic use of the term with 
Scriptural authority, the author of Acts simply describing 
thereby the visionary state in a general way. What this 
state in particular was like must be gathered from the inci- 


43 


dental statements of the Bible in regard to it. The facts 
show that eestasy in the Philonic sense, as an alienation of 
the-mind from itself, is excluded: 1.) The Biblical proph- 
ets on coming out of the visionary state have a clear remem- 
brance of what they saw and heard while being in it. Not 
so the heathen pavrecc, because during the vision their 
consciousness ceased to operate. Manticism was an un- 
natural thing, the supposed god coming and dislodging man 
from his own mind; true prophecy is a process whereby the 
spirit of man is honored and lifted to the highest plane of 
conscious intercourse with God. 2) The prophets, while 
in the visionary state, retained the faculty of reflection and 
introspection. Isaiah compares with the holiness of Jehovah 
sung by the Seraphs his own sinful condition. Ezekiel in a 
later vision was aware of the similarity of what he saw to 
what had been shown him on a former occasion, cfr. III, 
23; vill, 4; X,15; Xx, 22; xu, 3. Interesting from this 
point of view is Is. Xx1, 6-10, where the prophet’s person- 
ality in its twofold aspect of receiving the vision on the one 
hand and of reflecting upon it and speaking about it to 
Jehovah on the other hand, is divided into the “ watchman” 

and the prophet himself. The 8th vs. shows that these two 
personalities are one, the watchman being none other than 
the prophet himself. 3.) In the N. T. we have the explicit 
declaration of St Paul, 1 Cor. xrv, 32, that the spirits of the 
prophets are subject to the prophets, this being the very 
point in which prophecy was distinguished from the Glosso- 
lalia or speaking with tongues. 4,) ‘The distinction made 
between visions and dreanis is in favor of the view that the 
mind of the prophet in the vision retained intelligent con- 
trol of itself, the lack of which is a characteristic feature of 
the state of dreaming. For all these reasons the term 
ecstasy can be applied to Scriptural visions only in the 
sense of an alienation of the mind from the use of the sense- 
organs, not in that of an alienation of the mind from itself. 
Positively we observe: 1.) That the trance or loosening of 
the soul from the body, together with the appearance of the 
images, must have forced into the background of conscious- 
ness every other content, except the revelation-content im- 
mediately before it, which entirely absorbed the attention. 
This happens frequently in result of the suddenness with 
which any new experience rushes in upon us, so that after- 


44 


wards we are not able to recall what we were thinking of, 
when it came. 2.) The visionary state need not always have 
affected the body in the same sense or to the same degree. 
Sometimes the result may have been purely negative, so that 
the body lay perfectly quiet ‘as inasleep. There were other 
times, however, in which the vision called forth a reaction 
in the body with symptoms of a more or less abnormal char- 
acter. We read of a falling down of Ezekiel as soon as the 
hand of Jehovah came upon him. This was not a voluntary 
act of worship, but the eftect of the overpowering divine 
influence. The Spirit had to set the prophet upon his feet 
again, I, 28; 11, 1. Balaam also describes himself as falling 
down, Numb. xxiv, 4, 16. Occasiona!ly there was the sensa- 
tion of great heat manifesting itself in the throwing off of 
the outer garments, I Sam. xix, 24. Cfr. Jer. xx, 9; Ezek. 
vitt, 14, although in Saul’s and Jeremiah’s case this sensa- 
tion is not explicitly connected with the visionary state. 
Owing to such actions the prophet could make upon other 
persons the impression of being a madman, II Kings rx, 11, 
12; Jer. xxix, 26. These phenomena, however, were rare 
among the Biblical, especially among the canonical prophets. 
They prevailed extensively among the heathen Manteis, and 
in Israel the false prophets or the prophets of idols culti- 
vated them, to strengthen themselves and others in the 
belief that they were inspired. Zech. x1, 5,6. 3) After 
the vision had passed away a state of great mental and bodily 
exhaustion seems to have ensued. In order to interpret to 
him a new vision, the Angel had to awake Zechariah “as a 
man that is wakened out of his sleep,” Zech. iv, 1.  Cfr. 
also Jer. XxXI, 26. 

Many critics claim that the prophetic visions were not 
real experiences, but simply a form of literary composition 
employed by the prophets to add vividness and force to their 
writings. Some have applied this to all visions; most writ- 
ers restrict it to the later period of prophetism, holding that 
the visions at first were real, but that. as prophecy developed, 
they were nothing more than literary compositions, which 
the prophets did not intend to be taken realistically. The 
arguments adduced in support of this view are: 1.) Some 
visions are so circumstantial and elaborate, that they cannot 
have been perceived; they betray in numerous points the 
careful artistic workmanship of the free composer. 2.) Some 


45 


of the visions are made up of such grotesqne and fantastic 
features, that no degree of imaginative power enables us to 
combine them into a real picture. They elude the painter’s 
skill for the simple reason that they are no real visions, but 
ageregates of loosely combined sin gle representations. What 
nobody can be made to see the prophets cannot have seen. 
3.) The connection between the vision and the truth it is 
intended to express is often far-fetched and artificial. Ifthe 
visions had been objective manifestations, the truth would 
of itself have assumed a more natural symbolic form. Cfr. 
Jer. 1,12. 4.) The complicated and artificial visions occur 
in the later prophets, Ezekiel and Zechariah ; the simple and 
natural ones belong to the older period of prophetism. The 
explanation is that the latter are real visions, the URS 
literary products. To these arguments we reply : 1.) We 
cannot from our own experience determine to how high a 
degree the faculty of seeing and reproducing details of a 
vision may have been developed in the prophets. The 
prophets were Shemites; the ecstatic state allowed of intense 
concentration of the soul upon a single scene. 2.) For the 
same reason our inability to combine the single elements of 
a vision into a picture does not exclude their having been 
so combined in the prophetic mind. 38.) The argument sub 
3) proves the opposite of what it is claimed to prove. In the 
ease of free literary composition prophets like Amos and 
Jeremiah would certainly have been capable of producing 
more natural and striking symbols than their visions are. 
They have proven their skill in poetic composition else- 
where. Nothing remains, therefore, but to say that the 
apparently artificial vision was objectively shown to them. 
4.) It may be true that the unnatural visions are found only 
in the later prophets, but these later prophets on other occa- 
sions see visions of striking vividness and great natural 
beauty. This shows that whatever artificiality there is to 
our taste is not the result of their manner of literary com- 
position. 5.) It is difficult to explain why the prophets 
made such rare use of this form of symbolic representation. 
An instrument appealing so strongly to the Shemitic mind 
they would certainly have employed more freely, had the 
use of it depended on their own choice. 6.) The prophets 
make a clear distinction between symbolic actions as per- 
formed by themselves and symbolic significance imparted to 


46 


their persons on the one hand, and symbolic visions seen by 
them on the other hand. If the visions were literary inven- 
tions, why this distinction? Why did not Jeremiah exhibit 
the almond-rod as a symbol, or Amos the basket of sum- 
mer-fruit? The real rod and the real basket as symbols 
would have been more effective than the bare statement of 
their alleged appearance in a vision. 7.) Most writers now 
admit that the earher prophets did see visions. But the 
later prophets speak of theirs in precisely the same language. 
This would have been misleading, had they not actually seen 
them. 

Revelation by Speech, Weterences to the speaking of 
Jehovah are frequent in the prophetic writings. Sometimes 
Jehovah’s speaking is a coinprehensive name for the whole 
process of communicating the truth through the prophet to 
his hearers. What we enquire about is Jehovah’s speech to 
the prophets. fr. for the distinction Hagg. 1,1; Mal. 1, 1 
with Hos. xu, 1. That the prophets knew of a revelation- 
speech addressed to them will appear from the following con- 
siderations: 1.) The terms 717 Vox, TN 737, TT oN); the 
first and second of these are Perfects and mean, literally 
translated, ‘‘ Jehovah hath said or hath spoken.” The last is 
a Participle Passive and means literally ‘that which has 
been oracled.” Now it need not be denied that in their 
later frequent use these words have perhaps assumed a 
looser meaning, so as to express the speaking of Jehovah 
through the prophet also. But the Perfect form shows that 
originally they related to revelations received before the 
prophet spoke. God spoke first to him, afterwards he re- 
peated or reproduced what he had heard in God’s name. 
2.) The prophets distinguish between Jehovah as the speak- 
ing God and the idols as dumb gods. This whole antithesis 
loses its point, if the divine speech be not a speech to the 
prophets. For as to speech through the prophets, in regard 
to this there was no apparent distinction between Jehovah 
and the idols. Baal spoke through his prophets as well as 
Jehovah did. The difference lay precisely in this point 
that in Heathen prophecy there was no objective speech 
coming from the gods to the prophets, but only an assumed 
entrance of the deity into the prophet to make him an un- 
unconscious organ, Ofr. Is. xii, 22-26; xii, 9; Jer. 
x, 5; Hab. 1m, 18. 3.) The divine speech must have 


47 


been considered objective speech by the prophets, be- 
cause it is represented as the expression of the planning 
and thinking of Jehovah. Just as in man thought and 
speech belong organically together, so in God. Now, if these 
plans and thoughts are in God, then the speech must be in 
God alco irae. xix, 17; Xxti/ OS er, Li 2o; Amos It, 7, 
4.) As a matter of fact we find a mouth ascribed to Jehovah, 
which, while not, of course, implying his corporeal nature, 
yet admits of no other interpretation than that He has the 
faculty of speech in the literal sense; Is. xxx1v, 16; Jer. 1, 
7,17. 5.) The prophets ascribe to the speaking of Jehovah 
various forms and various degrees of emphasis, and dis- 
tinctly say that He spoke unto his servants. Amos It, 7; 
Teo avait xt y 24> Ler ayn 0 eanios Ep. 82) G8) 
The speaking of Jehovah is assigned by the prophets to a 
definite point of time. Is. xvr, 18, 14; Jer. 1, 18. 

The character of revelation-speech was twofold, external and 
internal speech. By external speech we understand a divine 
act which causes certain sounds to be conducted through 
the ordinary organ of hearing to the mind of the prophet. 
There is clear evidence that in some cases the divine speech 
bore this character. Isaiah says that Jehovah spoke in his 
ears, V, 9; xxl, 14; similarly Ezek. 11, 10. Other local 
expressions are used describing the direction from which 
the words came to the prophet’s ear, Ezek. 111, 12, ‘‘ behind 
me”; ts, Xx1, 105 xxviti, 22; [Sami 11,8; 9. In the last case 
the voice was so external that Samuel mistook it repeatedly 
for Eli’s voice; cfr. also I Kings xrx, 11-13, where the wind, 
the earthquake, the fire, the voice of gentle stillness are all 
external, and consequently the revelation-voice following im- 
mediately after must have been so likewise. It is probable, 
however, that the prophets frequently heard the voice of 
Jehovah in a different manner, internally, without the use of 
their external organs of hearing. Some have attempted to 
vindicate for all prophetic revelation the character of external 
speech addressed to the bodily ear. Friedrich Eduard Konig, 
the author of an able and exhaustive treatise on the idea of 
revelation in the Old Testament, takes this ground, because 
he thinks that only thus could an infallible assurance be 
produced in the prophet’s mind regarding the objective 
divine source of the revelation. But this a-priori ground is 
in itself insufficient to prove the thesis. It cannot be proven 


48 


that externality of revelation in this sense excludes all pos- 
sibility of self deception. Nor can we assert that speech 
entering internally into the heart must lack the marks of 
objectivity so as to be no longer distinguishable from the 
prophet’s own mental processes, As to the possibility of 
internal speech, this rests on the same ground discussed 
above under the subject of visions. The only question re- 
maining 18s, whether there be sufficient evidence in the Script- 
ures to assume that this mode was actually employed by God. 
The following facts come under consideration: 1.) The 
root oxi 18 cognate with the roots on: and nnn “ to grumble, 
to rumble” and expressive of dull, low sounds. The 
phrase 737 08) is, therefore, as Riehm says, ‘‘ an appropriate 
description of the hollow, deadened tones of a voice from 
the world of mystery.” But in all accounts we possess. of 
revelation by external speech, there is nothing to.intimate 
that this ever came in such low, whispered tones. The 
‘sound of gentle stillness” (‘“ still small voice’ }, I Kings 
xIX, 12, was symbolical, the real revelation coming after- 
wards. It is not unlikely, then, that this peculiar sensa- 
tion was characteristic of internal hearing. 2.) We have the 
New Testament analogy as illustrated in our Lord’s life. 
Only in three instances did revelations come to Him as 
external voices; in all other cases there must have been an 
inward speech appropriated by inward hearing. Cfr. Jno. v, 
30. Similarly, in the case of Paul, even the revelation which 
effected his conversion and call, though it began with an 
external voice, seems to have been continued by inward 
speech. Gal.1,15,16. 3) The analogy of revelation by sight 
seems to require a double mode of revelation by sound. If 
the visions were not always seen by the bodily eye, we may 
assume that the speech of God was not always heard by the 
bodily ear. The prophets declare that some previous opera- 
tion was necessary to enable them to appropriate the divine 
speech when it came, which feature makes the analogy 
between internal seeing and hearing all the more obvious. 
This operation is called ‘“‘the wakening of the ear.” The 
extraordinary faculty of hearing by the inward sense is 
represented as asleep in the course of ordinary life. If God 
wishes to address Himself to it, He must first wake the ear. 
I Sam. rx, 15; Is. t, 4. We do not gain the impression, 
however, that the subjective state of the prophet, while receiv- 


49 


ing such internal revelation, resembled in any way, the 
abnormal conditions of the visionary state. In this respect 
there seems to have been a great difference between internal 
hearing and internal seeing. 4.) The Spirit of God is accord- 
ing to the prophets the organ for communicating the divine 
truth to them, and this favors the view that in some cases at 
at least the process of revelation was an inward one. 
This has been denied by K6énig, who restricts the work of 
the Spirit connected with revelation to preparing the human 
mind and making it receptive, thus excluding from it all 
impartation of truth. But there are numerous passages 
which speak of the Spirit as revealing the truth. IL Sam. 
Mie nee xKiIt 21s Joel ire di lsmxni Leia 
Zech, vil, 12; Neh. rx, 30. St. Peter removes all doubt on 
this point, saying that the Spirit of Christ testified in the 
prophets beforehand, I Peter 1, 11. Cfr. also I Cor. 11, 10. 
In what proportion verbal revelation took place by ex- 
ternal or by internal speech cannot be determined. As 
verbal revelation gradually supplanted visions, so the use of 
the internal word may have marked an advance in the 
development of prophetism. In the inner word God comes 
nearer to man than in any other mode of revelation. It has 
been suggested, that before the fall internal speech was the 
only vehicie whereby God communed with man. If this 
were so, it would explain the dread created in fallen man 
by the first sound of the external voice of God, Gen. 111, 10, 
and the return to this original mode of revelation would be 
one of the aspects in which prophecy itself is a type of the 
restored perfect communion between God and man. 
Revelation by inspiration. The whole contents of the 
prophetic writings are not. covered by the two modes of 
revelation hitherto discussed. In numerous passages the 
prophets speak in their own persons and without the usual 
formula introducing words of Jehovah. The transition from 
the reproductive to the more independent prophetic dis- 
course is sometimes clearly marked, cfr. Amos v, 1, 2, 3; 
Hosea xir, 16; x1v,1,4; Is.1, 2,4; vir, 8,9. It would be 
entirely wrong to suppose, however, that in such passages, 
the prophets ascribed a purely human authority to their 
words. If this were so, they would have taken care to separ- 
ate in each instance with precision between what was revela- 
tion-truth and their own discourse. Instead of doing this, 


50 


they continually interweave the two elements sometimes so 
closely that it is impossible to disentangle them. Cfr. Hosea 
Iv, 1-6; Is. 11, 4, 5, 9,10. The whole prophetic word is to 
them the word of Jehovah possessing absolute divine author- 
ity. Cfr. Jer. xxxvi, 10, ‘the words of Jeremiah,” vs. 11, 
“the words of Jehovah.” In many cases the contents of the 
prophetic message lay ready in the prophet’s mind, as the 
product of his general knowledge of Jehovah applied to con- 
erete circumstances, and there was no need of communicat- 
ing new thoughts to him. In such instances there was no 
revelation to the prophet, but the Spirit of Jehovah so con- 
trolled his mental processes that the truth was spoken or 
written in a form possessing equal divine authority with 
other messages directly disclosed. In its significance for 
those who heard, the prophetic word was in both cases 
entirely the same. Here, then, inspiration transformed the 
truth proceeding from the prophet’s consciousness into revela- 
tion-truth. Of course the influence of inspiration must like- 
wise be extended to all other revelations whether received 
by hearing or by sight. In the case of the latter it is plain 
that what Jehovah had disclosed would have to be described 
in words, and on the choice of these words the correct repro- 
duction of the vision depended. But also in the case of 
verbal revelation, it is evident that the prophets did not 
mechanically repeat what Jehovah had spoken to them. In 
those passages where God is introduced as speaking, as well 
as in those where the prophets speak, the individual char- 
acter of the style of the writer is discernible. Some have 
explained this on the principle that God in speaking to the 
prophets accomodated Himself to their individual style. 
It is much more reasonable to assume that the prophets freely 
reproduced what they had heard and that the divine authorita- 
tive character, which they claim for this reproduced speech 
of Jehovah, was secured for it by the process of inspiration. 


Ill. Tue DocrrinaL Content oF THE PRopuecy or Hosza. 
The revelation-ideas of the book of Hosea may be suit- 
ably grouped under the following heads: 


1.) The covenant between Jehovah and Israel. 
2.) Jehovah as the Covenant-Lord of Israel. 


51 


3.) The breach of the covenant on Israel’s part. (Hosea’s 
teaching on the subject of sin.) 

4.) The covenant.judgment and its twofold purpose. 

5.) The future restoration of the covenant-bond and its 
ideal perfection. 


1.) The Covenant between Jehovah and Israel. 

The covenant-idea is with Hosea the central idea of 
Israel’s religion, as may be seen from the first three chapters, 
where the covenant is set forth under the figure of the mar- 
riage -union between the prophet and his wife. Wellhausen 
thinks, that this turn given to the idea is original with 
Hosea and requires a definite historical event to account for 
its origin. This definite historical event he finds in the 
domestic experiences of the prophet, who was led to view 
his own unhappy relations with his wife as an image of the 
relation between Jehovah and Israel. This view involves 
the realistic explanation of Ch. I and HI. Only the explicit 
divine command to take a wife of whoredom was a subse- 
quent interpretation of events. It is not necessary for 
Biblical Theology to decide the vexed dispute between 
allegorists and realists in regard to these chapters. The 
religious significance of the description is precisely the same 
whether it be history or allegory. Even if adopting the 
realistic view, we need not with Wellhausen infer, that here 
hes the origin of the marriage-conception as applied to the 
covenant, for this conception is found in the Decalogue, 
Re Xs Bi Deut. v, 9. Like that of fatherhood and king- 
ship, the idea of a marriage-union between God and his* 
worshippers is so primitive and fundamental as not to 
require a definite historical explanation. It is not even 
characteristic of revealed religion. Neither it nor the con- 
ception of divine fatherhood and kingship were proper to 
Israel ‘alone ; Numb. xx1, 29; Jer, 11, 27; Mal... 1, 11. 
Especially among Israel, where Jehovah was represented as 
Father of the covenant-people, and the nation as a unit was 
called mother, a simple combination of these two ideas 
would yield the conception of a marriage-union between 
Jehovah and the nation. There was a great difference, 
however, between the meaning attached to the figure by 
Israel and by the Gentiles. In the language of nature-wor- 
ship, the figure of marriage stands for nothing else than 


52 


the natural physical intercourse between heaven and earth 
on which the blessings of agriculture depend. This was 
the kind of worship the Israelites fell into when they served 
Baal, 11,6. Similarly the fatherhood of their gods was 
frequently understood by the heathen in a physical sense. In 
the language of revelation, these figures mean something 
infinitely higher. Fatherhood, kingship, marriage, all 
designate historical and redemptive relations between 
Jehovah and his people. Of all these figures none is so well 
adapted to express this historic and redemptive character as 
the figure of marriage. Marriage has in itself a historical 
element, originating in personal choice, and not being pre- 
ceded by a natural and necessary bond between the parties 
contracting it. Hosea, by his manner of developing this 
figure, lifts the covenant out of the sphere of nature into the 
sphere of redemptive history. The covenant is: 

1.) A historical union. Israel has not been always thus 
united to Jehovah. It was owing to a definite historical 
event that the union had been concluded. Hosea lays great 
stress on this historical elemeut, xi, 1; xi, 4. He distin- 
guishes between Israel] and the 04 and oy, vir, 10; 
1x, 1; cfr. also the numerous historical references in Ch. 
LIU X5) Sy 2M, i KEE 

2.) A spiritual union. UHosea’s. covenant-marriage is 
a marriage of love, upon which both parties enter of their 
free will, by an ethical choice, for the purpose of hold- 
ing spiritual communion. It may be said that in Hosea’s 
time marriage did not partake of this high ethical and 
spiritual character, there being less equality between the 
sexes and less freedom of choice on the woman’s part. This 
was undoubtedly so, but it is all the more significant that 
Hosea has not brought down the covenant-ideal to the level 
of the imperfect conjugal relations of his own age. The 
opening chapters of his book, whether allegory or history, 
display a marvelous depth of spiritual love, a love so uncom- 
mon that it glorifies an otherwise far from attractive story. 
We must say, that either by special grace the prophet was 
enabled to exhibit in his conduct toward his wife this high 
type of love, or that the Spirit gave him such a vision of the 
divine love and its spiritual heights, that the allegory 
he wrote came to describe something far transcending 
the ordinary experience of his day. This feature is 


53 


found not only in the symbolic part of his book but likewise 
in the subsequent chapters. The following points are to be 
noted: a.) The origin of the covenant lies in the free love 
of God. The term used of the divine love under this aspect 
is yN, ‘to know,” ‘ to take Joving knowledge of,” (cfr. the 
primitive meaning of the root “ to lay away in one’s heart”), 
Migkeoee ens love was so one-sided in its origin that it can 
be compared to paternal love, x, 1. Jehovah is the Maker 
of Israel, vit1, 14. b.) Although one-sided in its origin, yet 
the covenant was not made in any other way than by Jeho- 
vah’s persuading Israel in acts and words to enter upon it 
freely. Hosea represents God as suing for the love of 
Israel, 11, 15. Jehovah took the highest pleasure in the 
first awakening affection of his people, rx, 10. The strongest 
expression this thought has found in x1, 4. “Cords of man” 
as kind and affectionate means of guiding Israel in distine- 
tion from the bands whereby animals are kept under control. 
The divine love for Israel in its continuance is described as 
the paternal care bestowed by Jehovah upon training up the 
youthful people to a state of maturity, vir, 15; x1, L Even 
after Israel became unfaithful, Ife continued to appeal to 
their heart by proofs of his love, if he might move them to 
repentance, and Ch. vr, 4 is the language of divine dis- 
appointment at the failure of these efforts. All this shows 
how deeply Hosea has cenceived of the covenant as a sphere 
in which the noblest and purest spiritual attributes are 
ealled into exercise. 

3.) The covenant is a legal relation. Hosea conceives of it 
just as much as a sphere of duty as he conceives of it as a 
sphere of love. It has been asserted that the emotional 
element is so supreme in the prophet’s character as to 
obscure the legal and ethical side of the relation. The state- 
ment in this form is unwarranted. Hosea emphazises strongly 
the duty of covenant-obedience to which the people are 
pledged. He reproaches Israel not merely with having been 
deficient in love and affection, but with having violated dis- 
tinct promises and made themselves legally guilty. ‘Jehovah 
has a3), a controversy at law, with the inhabitants of the 
land, because there is no truth, no mercy, no knowledge of | 
God, but swearing and breaking faithwete:sivi I N22" xine 2. 
A controversy of this kind presupposes a law giving right to 
sue. This law to which the wife has become unfaithful dates 


54 


back, of course, to the time when the marriage was con- 
tracted, so that Hosea bears witness to the existence of an 
ancient covenant-law among Israel enacted at the time of the 
exodus, although, of course, nothing can be determined in 
this way as to the precise extent of this law. From vitr, 12, 
however, it follows, that it was not of small compass and had 
been given in written form. As to the alleged obscuration 
of the ethical elements, it must be said that Ilosea is as 
emphatic in his ethical demands as the other prophets. In 
Ch. vir, 1-3 the appeal to affection made by the }eople can- 
not stem the judgment, which sin has called forth. vr, 6 is 
a classical passage even among its kind. Only this much is 
true that to Hosea the idea of the covenant as distinctively 
religious (not purely emotional) colours all his ethical judg- 
ments. The element of value in righteousness consists for 
the prophet in this, that it be inspired by covenant-love and 
loyalty to Jehovah. Religion and ethics interpenetrate. The 
guilt of transgression is enhanced in his view by its offending 
against the covenant-love of God. For this reason distrust 
of Jehovah is one of Israel’s chief sins. 

4) The covenant is an all-comprehensive union of life. The 
formula which expresses this most adequately is u, 28 ‘I 
will say, thou art my people, and they shall say, Thou art 
my God.” The covenant involves community of all inter- 
ests, reciprocal possession and enjoyment. It is so pervasive 
as to leave no room for a distinction between what is secular 
and religious Even so common a thing as the joy over a 
plentiful harvest derives a specific character from it, 1x, 1. 
All physical gifts are to become the means of realizing its 
higher spiritual ends. The natural power of propagation 
stands in the service of the covenant, I, 2; v, 7. The whole 
of natural life is transformed and ennobled by the principle 
of grace. 

5.) The end of the covenant is that Israel shall become like 
Jehovah. The covenant-lite is a transforming life. As in 
human marriage there is a two-sided character-forming in- 
fluence, so covenant marriage is intended to exert a forma- 
tive influence upon Israel, the revelation of the divine 
attributes gradually changing Israel into Jehovah’s likeness. 
Hosea has formulated this idea chiefly in connection with 
his’ portrayal of the future perfect covenant. The present 
showed too little of it, just asin the figure his own noble 


ar) 


character in vain strives to impress itself upon his unfaithful 
wife. Cfr. 1x, 10. The great stress laid by the prophet upon 
the indispensableness of knowledge of Jehovah for the regen- 
eration of Israel’s covenant-life is to be expiained on this 
principle. Again and again Hosea returns to the charge 
that Israel’s failure is due to lack of such knowledge, Iv, 1; 
LV .0 Nees Cin.als0 Vi, 5,6; Vill, 2; X11, 4; x1V,,9.\ lt.has 
been said that Hosea was so much a man of feeling as to find 
some more objective support for his preaching absolutely 
necessary, and that thus he appealed to the knowledge of 
Jehovah as an intellectual element counterbalancing the sub- 
jective emotional element. Others have explained this feature 
from the moral and religious confusion which reigned in the 
prophet’s day, the only hope of bringing order into which 
lay in an appeal to some outward norm of what was true 
religion and morals. But the chief motive for Hosea’s in- 
sistence on the knowledge ot Jehovah undoubtedly lies in 
his covenant-conception. What he desires is practical knowl- 
edge, the intimacy and understanding of love springing up 
between husband and wife. Cfr. xirrt, 4, 5, where Israel’s 
knowledge of Jehovah is placed on a line with the loving 
knowledge of Jehovah in regard to Israel in the wilderness. 
6.) Lhe covenant is a national covenant. Inthe main Hosea 
occupies the standpoint common to all O. T. writers, in so 
far as they speak of the present. The covenant is a union 
between Jehovah and Israel, not between Jehovah and 
individual Israelites in the first place, x, 1. Nevertheless 
in nore than one respect Hosea has become instrumental in: 
imparting to the development of the covenant-idea an indi- 
vidualizing direction. a,) His emotional temperament was a 
potent factor in this respect. From its emotional side, more 
perhaps than from any other side, religion is a personal, ind1- 
vidual matter. Even when Hosea speaks of the people col- 
lectively, this element is so strong that it personities and indi- 
vidualizes Israel and makes the nation speak with all the 
warmth and living interest characteristic of a person. The 
words which the prophet has put into the mouth of Israel 
are such that almost without change the individual believer 
may appropriate them. Cfr. mu, 7, 16, 23; vi, 1-3; vu, 
2; xIv, 2-4, 8. This is not surprising if we remember 
that at the basis of the prophet’s impersonation of this 
character lay the figure of the relation between himself 


56 


and his wife. Thus the ideal of the covenant, as it lived 
in his soul, involved the most intimate personal relation- 
ship, and such an ideal can be realized only when all the 
single members of the people of God make the personal 
appropriation for themselves of.what Jehovah is to the 
nation as a whole. Jeremiah, who in his emotional tem- 
perament strongly resembles Ilosea, has taken up this line 
of thought and consciously developed what was implicitly 
contained in Hosea’s prophecy. b.) If Jehovah be the hus- 
band and the people as a whole the wife, then the single 
Israelites naturally appear as children, and the conception of 
Jehovah's fatherhood, usually applied to the nation, will thus 
receive an individualizing application. 1, 10 (observe the 
Plural “sons”’?}; 1, 1; x1, 8, 4 (observe the Plural gine 
c.) The prophet predicts that the people will not be restore 
to the favor of Jehovah until after a most terrible punish- 
ment, in which the majority perish. The Israel, therefore, 
that inherits the promise is not the whole people but a part, 
and this part not in virtue of their carnal descent but of a 
spiritual change of heart. It is obvious that in this he prin- 
ciples, from which a much more pronounced individualism 
might be developed, than Hosea has consciously reached for 
himself. 


2. Jehovah the Covenant-Lord of Israel. 


The unity and spiritual nature of Jehovah. Hosea dwells 
but little on the nature of God apart from his relation 
to Israel. So, when he speaks of the unity of Jehovah, and 
that there is no other god besides Him, this means primarily, 
for Israel, x1, 4. This feature should not be construed, 
however, as involving an admission of the existence of the 
heathen gods. According to Baudissin the development of 
religious thought among Israel in the direction of Mono- 
theism, passed through three stages: 1.) the heathen gods 
were recognized as existing and as exercising power upon 
Israel also; 2.) the heathen gods were recognized as existing 
and as exercising power outside of Israel, but as not having 
any significance for Israel. Jehovah is the only God for 
Israel; 3.) the heathen gods are declared non-entities. 
Baudissin makes Hosea represent the second stage. But, 
though the prophet has not directly expressed his conviction 


57 


in regard to the existence or non-existence of other gods, 
with the exception of 1, 10, “the living God”, yet in 
an indirect way we can show that to him they were 
non-entities. Hosea polemizes in a peculiar way against the 
gods worshipped among Israel. He speaks of them in no 
other terms than the contemptible terms applicable-to a piece 
of gold, silver or wood, vitt, 6; xt, 2, Uniess this polemic 
was utterly unfair and unfounded it must have been based 
on the supposition that there was nothing more to the 
strange gods than the material image itself. That the image, 
in distinction from the gods, was made of gold and silver 
was such an obvious fact, that to assert it could have served 
no imaginable purpose. What Hosea means to aflirm is 
much rather, that the god is no more than the image and, 
the image being so much matter, does not exist at all. Now 
it may be said that the i images of which Hosea speaks thus 
are Jehovah-images, and that nothing follows from this 
polemic in regard to the he: phat gods. But it is probable 
that in such passages as x1, 2; xrv. 3, Hosea speaks of 
Baal-images as well as of Jehovah-images. And the same 
reasoning which made the prophet conclude that a Jehovah 
representable by an image was no god, applied with equal 
stringency to all the heathen gods, who had images to 
represent them. Finally, the polemic of Hosea certainly 
presupposes the spiritual nature of Jehovah, and Jehovah 
once being recognized as a spiritual Being, the non-divinity 
of the other gods. who were not spiritual, followed by easy 
inference. That Jehovah is more than Israel’s national 
god is implied also in the fact of his using the other nations 
for the punishment of Israel. Hosea nowhere formulates 
this thought as Isaiah has done, but it underlies his state- 
Mente: Cite hb. (3. Ve Os Vil Los ox eal 

The conception of Jehovah whom the people mean to 
worship in the calves is to Hosea a delusion as much as the 
Baalim. What the Israelites had retained was little more than 
the name of Jehovah, acreation of their own sinful hearts, 
not the historical conception of Jehovah as acquired from his 
self-revelation in the past. Jehovah is a God whose nature can 
have nothing in common with material images As soon 
as his name is associated with images it ceases to be ex- 
pressive of his true being, and changes into the name of an 
idol. The conception of Jehovah as a spiritual, immaterial 


58 


Being underlies this way of thinking. Jehovah is not 
merely contrasted with the Baalim, but the true, historical, 

really existing Jehovah is contrasted with the false, idol- 
atrous, free Jehovah of the calves. Observe the contrast. 
in Ch. x, 2,4. The god represented by the calves is an, 
idol ‘according to their own understanding.” The calf of 
Bethel is called Israel’s own counsel, that is a god they have 
thought out for themselves, x, 6. 

Of the prophetic names of God Hosea once uses that of 
Jehovah, the God of Hosts, nixayq ca>y nim, xi, 5. This 
is the fullest form of the name and found in this passage and. 
three passages in Amos only. Sometimes the article before 
Zebaoth fails, sometimes Elohej or Jehovah fails. As in 
other cases, so here many modern critics ascribe to prophet- 
ism the creation of what used to be considered an ancient 
inheritance of Israel. Wellhausen credits Amos with the 
formation of the name Jehovah Zebaoth. Unless the his- 
torical records are entirely unreliable, the name was used 
long before the rise of canonical prophecy. Samuel’s mother 
uses it, I Sam. 1, 11; Samuel himself, [ Sam. xv, 2; David, I 
Sam. xvi, 45; Il Sam. vr, 18. It occurs three times in the 
important chapter If Sam. vir, twice in the mouth of Jeho- 
vah, once in David’s mouth. Elijah uses it several times, I 
Kings xvi, 15; xix, 10, 14; Elisha once, If Kings 11, 14. 
From some of these passages it is plain what was the original 
meaning of the name. J avid explains it by the equivalent 
vhrase “the God of the armies of Israel.” In the xxrvth 
Psalm ‘“ Jehovah mighty in battle” stands parallel with 
“ Jehovah of Hosts.’”? Some maintain that this is not merely 
the first but the only meaning the name has in the O. T. 
Others hold that the later writers connect with it a different 
idea. Besides the ordinary sense of human army the word 
say has the following significations: 1) The heavenly hosts 
of Angels, Josh. v, 14; [ Kings xx11, 19; Luke 11, 13; 2.) 
the stars, either as a host counted and marshalled by God, 
or as objects of idolatrous worship; Is. xu, 26; Deut. rv, 19; 
3.) the cosmical powers and forces in their totality; Gen. 1, 
1; Ps. crrr, 21. Now the question is, whether in the proph- 
etic writings, in the name Jehovah of Hosts, the term hosts 
occurs in one of these three senses, so that a ‘development i in 
the meaning of the name will have to be assumed. We 
discuss this question with reference to the passage in Hosea 


59 


only. That Hosea should use the name in the old military 
sense does not seem probable, because the prophet does not 
favor the idea of Gou's doing anything for Israel by might 
of war. The Israelites trusted too much in the external 
instrumetts of warfare ; 1,7; 11, 18; x,.183 xiv, 8. Onlyif 
we could assume that Jehovah were called God of Hosts 
because He marshals the nations against Israel for judgment, 
would it be at all likely that Hosea used the name in its old 
sense. There isan example of this in Is. x11, 4, but not in Hosea. 
The context in Ch. x11 determines the meaning of the name 
in Hosea’s mouth. Ephraim is charged with compassing 
Jehovah about with falsehood and deceit, This deceitful 
conduct makes them resemble the patriarch Jacob, who also 
in the first period of his life by deceit and cunning strove to 
make himself rich and powerful. But through Jacob’s 
wrestling with the Angel, his character had been transformed, 
and afterwards Jehovah had spoken to him words of bless- 
ing and promise. The words ‘* He found him at Bethel, 
there He spake with us” refer to Gen. xxxv, 9-15, where 
Jehovah confirms the patriarchal promises to Jacob and in 
so doing calls Himself 3 98 “ God Almighty.” The prophet 
describes all this because he expects the re-enactment of 
it in the life of Israel. The crisis which changes 
Israel’s character will come as it came in Jacob’s life, and 
after that the people also will have their Bethel, where 
Jehovah finds them and speaks blessings to them. As He 
who spoke to Jacob was El Shaddaj, so He who will speak 
to Israel is Jehovah of Hosts, and in both cases the name 
serves the same purpose, that of pledging the almighty power 
of God for the fulfilment of a promise whose marvelous’ 
greatness might awaken doubt. Jehovah Zebaoth, therefore, 
is the prophetic equivalent for the patriarchal El] Shaddaj. 
It designates Jehovah as the Ruler of all cosmical powers 
and forces. The Septuagint has, in some books at least, so 
understood the term. In the Minor Prophets with few ex- 
ceptions it renders the name by 0 @eog 0 xavtoxpatwp or b 

xvotos mavtoxpatwo, ‘God or the Lord the All-Ruler,” this 
being also its rendering for El Shaddaj. The words “ Jeho- 
vah is his memorial” in Hosea xir, 5 point back in similar 
manner to Exod. m1, 15 and the two names together place 
the omnipotence and faithfulness of God jointly at the dis- 
posal of the regenerated Israel. 


60 


Of the attributes of God the so-called communicable ones 
stand in the foreground with Iflosea and among these his 
love and mercy. Mercy is but the specific form which love 
assumes in view of the misery of the covenant-people. It is 
not general pity, but deepened and enriched by the divine 
love, the pity which as husband Jehovah takes upon his 
wifes 15 "°6;) Theo xtve 33 etre Psitorm 13. Le will“ be repre: 
duced in Israel’s covenant-life in the future, 11, 19. The 
word rendered ‘“‘mercy” in Chap. 11, 1; vi, 6, is, how- 
ever, 70M meaning rather “ kindness ” Israel can exercise 
Chesed towards Jehova h, vi, 4, but merey, o9N2 only 
towards other men, in imitation of Jehovah. Also the op- 
posites of love and mercy, those attributes which bring 
judgment and misery upon the people, are described by 
Hosea from the emotional side. The divine resentment of 
sin is called “hating”, 1x, 15. The intention to chastise is 
depicted as a strong desire on Jehovah’s part, x, 10. The 
strongest expressions are found in Ch. vi, 14; xu, 7, 8. 
Besides these figurative expressions the anger and wrath of 
Jehovah are mentioned as the source of judgment, x1, 9; 
xi, L1. It has been asserted that al! these passages speak 
of judgment for the purpose of chastisement, that Hosea 
does not ascribe to Jehovah the attribute of justice pure and 
simple, nay, that the prophet’s merit lies exactly in this 
interpretation of the jadgment as an instrument of love. 
This view is irreconcilable with 1x, 15, ‘I will love them 
no more.” It is also excluded by x1, 8, 9, where the heart 
and the compassions of Jehovah are e represented as restrain- 
ing his anger. If the latter were a specific form of love, 
there would be no place for its restriction by love. As will 
be shown later, Hosea represents the judgment partly as. 
punishment for the majority of Israel, partly as chastise- 
ment producing conversion, for those who are to come 
forth from it as a new Israel. But such terms as ‘to visit 
Upony” ie TSS Vie 18s Ixy 9s OV POWREG orvoe 50 kines 
eto PSL iatks ix hs. to pay the gant, toepear toe 
guilt,’x, 2, are all expressive of the retributive side of the 
divine judgment, whereas the term ‘ to rebuke,” v, 2; x, 2, 
describes the other aspect. 

The attributes of holiness and righteousness are not 
conceived of by Hosea as causing the judgment, but appear 
in a different meaning. The holiness of Jehovah is that 


61 


which guards the divine anger against all sinful excess of 
passion, x1, 9. Thisistheonly passage where the divine holi- 
ness occurs in Hosea, the text in xr, 12, being very obscure 
and uncertain. To explain how the holiness of Jehovah 
can here act as a restraint upon his anger, whereas else- 
where it appears as the source of the divine anger, a brief 
excursus on the subject of holiness in prophetic revelation 
generally is required. 

The Hebrew word translated by “holy ” is wp, the 
noun “holiness” wjp. The primitive meaning of the root 
is uncertain. It does not occur in Hebrew except in these 
two words and in forms derived from them. The word has 
been entirely appropriated for this one specific religious 
usage. ‘Two derivations are to be considered: 1.) Accord- 
ing to many wap shares with roots in which the letters 1p are 
the ae radicals the general sense of “ cutting off, separat- 
ing.’ 2.) Others connect wp with won ‘to be new,” origi- 
nally, “to be clear, shining ”; on this view the fundamental 
idea expressed would be that of purity or clearness. The 
former of these derivations deserves the preference for three 
reasons: 1.) It is easier to subsume the two principal appli- 
cations of the term in reference to God under the general 
conception of separateness than under that of purity; 2.) the 
opposite of wimp is always On, whereas of WW “ pure,” the 
opposite is 82v “impure.’”? Now 5n literally signifies that 
which is loose or open, that is, accessible to common use, 
and the fundamental conception opposite to this must be 
something like “‘set apart, separated.” Cfr. [ Sam. xx, 5; 
Ezek. xii, 20; Amos, 7. If in other passages Qadosh is 
used as synonymous with Tahor, and Chol as synonymous 
with Tame this proves only that the two have certain ele- 
ments in common, not that they are strict equivalents. To 
be holy presupposes being pure, the reverse is not true. 
Holiness is a wider conception than purity; 3.) a synonymous 
term of WIP and w43pn “ to sanctify” is ON) and the latter 
undoubtedly starts from the primitive idea of separating. 
(Cfr. the words ‘“ harein”? and Hermon probabiy=‘ inac- 
cessible.”’ 

The words “holy” and “holiness”? are used both of 
God and of created beings. God Himselfis holy and places 
times, things, persons are holy. The question has been 
raised, which of the two usages is the more ancient one. 


62 


Probably in the sphere of corrupt natural religion, created 
things were first called holy as consecrated to thre deity, and 
the name was afterwards transferred to the gods themselves, 
the mediating link being the image of the de ‘ity. In the 
sphere of revealed religion the ascription of holiness to men 
and things was intended from the beginning to teach the 
holiness of God. CirriGens i, 3. COF 6d the term 1s first 
used Exod. xv, 11. 

1.) In its most general sense the holiness of God signi- 
fies his uniqueness, bis specifically divine character. This 
most general sense 1s reflected in the words “ [am God and 
not man” in the passage of [losea; it has found its clearest 
expression in I Sam. i, 2, ‘¢ There is none holy as Jehovah, 
for there is none beside thee” This idea of holiness is 
associated with Jehovah’s dwelling on high, because the 
latter symbolizes in like manner his exaltation above the 
lower, terrestrial sphere, Is. tvu, 15; it is farther connected 
with the several ine of God, as with his eternity, 
dshovite 15 3) Hiab. 2; his absolute power, especially in 
Ezekiel with whom awe great name and Jehovah’s holy 
name are synonymous expression?, Xxxvi, 20-24; Exod. 
xv; 11; Numb. xx, 12; his grace, Psiixetx, 4-9; cr, 1-5; 
Is. pvr, 15. Although the divine holiness is associated 
with these attributes, yet it would be incorrect to say that 
holiness = eternity, power, grace. Not in themselves, but 
through the unique manner in which they reveal the 
divinity of God, are eternity, power, grace expressions of 
the divine holiness. The state of mind in man which cor- 
responds to holiness in this general sense, is awe and rev- 
erence such as behooves the creature over against the 
Creator. Jehovah’s holiness excites fear, apart from every 
thought of sin. Hence holiness is sometimes equivalent to 
inaccessibleness; I Sam. vi, 20; Is. virr, 18; Ps. cxr, 9. 

2.) In a more specialized sense the holiness of Jehovah 
means his separation from impurity, especially sinful impur- 
ity, the ethical distinction between God and evil. Whilst 
under the former aspect holiness is an irremovable dis- 
tinctness of God, under this aspect it denotes a separation 
which can be removed. The formal agreement between the 
two applications of the idea lies in the following points: 1.) 
Owing to the universal prevalence of sin, God’s ethical holi- 
ness, distinguishes and separates Him from every human 


63 


creature as well as his metaphysical holiness. 2.) Even in 
the ethical holiness there is something incommunicable and 
unique, which the holiest creature can never share with God. 
Jehovah’s holiness does not merely mean that He is empiri- 
eally free from sin, but that He is a-priori inaccessible to sin. 
Man may be sinless, but in God sin cannot enter. 3) The 
ethical perfection of God can be considered so much the 
center and the controlling aspect of the divine nature, that 
his essential divinity can by preference be placed in it. 
Kspecially to the prophetic consciousness, this was the 
supreme element in the nature of Jehovah. — It should be 
observed that even in its restricted, ethical sense the term 
holiness retains its comparative character. We may render 
it by ethical sublimity or exalted purity; Is. v, 16. The 
Shemite speaks of ethical qualities in terms of dimension, 
where we are accustomed to apply terms of intensity, be- 
cause to him the contrast between God and the creature, 
the High and the low, is always present in his mind, 
Civ beixve 1s) Xxiv, 3. Henee the consciousness of sin 
awakened by the perception of the divine holiness is mixed 
with extreme humiliation, Especially in Isaiah this idea of 
holiness as the loftiness of ethical perfection, towering high 
above human sin and levelling it in jadgment to the dust, is 
very prominent; Is v, 14,15. In the ethical sense also the 
holiness of Jehovah is an active principle, which not only 
keeps aloof from sin but likewise reacts against sin and 
destroys what is sinful; Is. x, 17; xxxri, 14. 

The passage in Hosea alludes to the divine holiness as 
absolutely exclusive of and inaccessible to sin. In case of a 
man even righteous anger carries with it a strong temptation 
to sin. In God’s case the resentment against sin is wholly 
removed from this possibility, has nothing in common with 
impure passion. The same holiness, therefore, which 
inspires the divine anger against sin, also guarantees that 
this anger will be free from sin in itself. 

3.) The holiness of God is revealed to Israel alone; it 
belongs to the sphere of special revelation. Jehovah says: 
‘““T am the Holy One in the midst of thee”’ The divine 
majesty and the majestic purity of God are not recognized 
by the heathen. The whole earth is full of the glory of 
Jehovah, but nowhere is it said that the whole earth is full 
of his holiness. The heathen Shemites may also have called 


64 


their gods holy, but they did not attach to the term the 
absolute meaning which it has in the Old Testament. Here 
it is applied to Jehovah in distinct contrast with and to the 
exclusion of the holiness of all other gods. Is. xvi, 7. The 
holiness of heathen gods simply meant inapproachableness. 
Israel, however, is not merely the sphere of the revelation 
of Jehovah’s holiness, it is also the sphere in which his 
holiness exercises a positive influence. Jehovah in virtue of 
his holiness sanctifies Israel. Symbolically and typically 
this 1s expressed in the numerous laws which provide for an 
external separation between Israel and what is profane. 
In a more real and spiritual sense the sanctifying influence 
of the divine holiness upon Israel may be traced along the 
following lines: 1.) As Jehovah is separated by his unique 
divinity from all other beings and powers that are called 
divine, so Israel should be likewise separated from these in its 
life. In its wider sense the holiness of Jehovah issues into the 
demand of strict Monotheism. 2.) As Jehovah is inaccessible 
to everything impure, so Israel should keep itself from all 
defilement of sin. In the restricted sense, the holiness of 
Jehovah has for its correlate, the ethical purity of Israel. 
It will be seen from this what an important part this con- 
ception plays in Old Testament revelation. The two funda- 
mental principles which the Old Testament had to em- 
phasize and to enforce are given in it as in their comion 
root. Hence the whole revelation of God can be viewed 
under this one aspect and called ‘“‘his holy name.” 8.) If 
Israel be separated from the same things Jehovah is separated 
from, then such separation strengthens the consecration of 
Israel to Jehovah. Holiness thus comes to mean the ap- 
purtenance of Israel to Jehovah in a special sense, Jer. II, 8. 
Just as the firstfruits of the harvest are set apart for the 
exclusive use of Jehovah, so the chosen people have been 
set apart for his use alone. This third sense of the idea, as 
applied to man, is the one to which something remotely 
analogous can be discovered among the heathen Shemites. 
The heathen also seem to have conceived of those things 
which belonged to the immediate environment of the gods 
as in some sense their exclusive property, not to be devoted 
to any common use. But the difference between this and 
the revelation-idea lies in two points: a.) the holiness of the 
heathen deities is a naturalistic, physical conception, being 


65 


a vague divine influence passing over to persons and things. 
It has been compared to an electric fluid with which every- 
thing in the neighborhood of a shrine or dwelling-place of 
the gods is charged and which renders it dangerous to the 
touch. Among “Israel on the other hand the holiness of 
Jehovah is a historical idea. What is holy has become so 
not in virtue of a naturalistic influence, but in virtue ofa 
free act of election and redemption; b.) the communicated 
holiness of the heathen extended only to the immediate 
surroundings of the gods; among Israel it extends to the 
whole people, and thus distinguishes them as a whole from 
all other nations in a religious point of view. This idea of 
appurtenance to Jehovah in the further progress of revela- 
tion has assumed more and more of an active meaning, so 
that it passes over into the idea of positive, spiritual con- 
secration, This, together with the fructifying contact upon 
which the ethical element and this more strictly religious 
element entered in the course of history, has produced the 
profound N. T. conception of holiness, which is that of 
active consecration to God by the love of a purified heart. 

It will be observed that in this last application of the 
idea of holiness to Israel the parallelism between the holi- 
ness of Jehovah and that of the people, which exists in the 
two other aspects, is wanting. It cannot be said, that as the 
holiness of Israel signifies their appurtenance to Jehovah, so 
the holiness of Jehovah expresses his belonging to Israel. 
Some indeed have claimed that this is the case, ‘holiness in 
their view being always a relation-term, denoting what rela- 
tion Jehovah sustains to Israel and Israel to Jehovah. But 
there is no proof that the term when applied to God ever 
has this sense. The name “ Holy One of Israel” frequent in 
Isaiah (occurring also in Jeremiah and the Psalms) has been 
appealed to and interpreted for this reason as ‘‘ the God who 
has consecrated Himself in covenant to Israel.” A better 
view is that the name implies a double truth: 1.) That 
Jehovah is a holy God; 2.) that Jehovah belongs to Israel. 
But the latter idea is expressed by the Genitive and not by 
the adjective ‘ holy 

The threefold application of the principle of the divine 
holiness to Israel, may be said to correspond to the three 
general spheres of metaphysical truth (unity and exclusive 
divinity of Jehovah), ethical truth (ethical purity of Jehovah), 
religious truth (spiritual appurtenance to Jehovah.) 


66 


Righteousness p}¥ 1PI¥ as a divine attribute is men- 
tioned in two passages of Hosea, 11, 19; and x, 12. In both 
places it signifies the faithfulness of Jehovah in the fulfilment 
of his covenant- -promises. This is a meaning we are little 
apt to associate with the word, but which it ‘obtains natur- 
ally in the following manner. p7¥ means originally “to be 
straight,” and righteousness is conformity to a straight line. 
Man is righteous, when conforming to the rule of God. But 
in the Biblical way of thinking God’s righteousness also is 
conformity toa rule. Not in the sense as if there were an 
abstract norm of right above God, to which He is subjected, 
for such a thought is utterly foreign to the spirit of the O. 
T. God has freely laid down a rule for the government of 
his nee and his righteousness consists in adherence to 
this rule. 1.) In the widest sense God acts under the law of 
his own nature, a copy of which is revealed in creation, and 
his righteousness implies: a.) the giving of this law; b.) the 
decision under it in cases of dispute, and the defense of the 
oppressed against the oppressor; ¢.) the meting out of just 
punishment to the transgressor; d.) the fulfilment of the gen- 
eral promises which He has made to all creatures out of his 
common grace; cfr. Ps. xxxvi,6. In this last case we would 
rather speak of love and mercy, because we are apt to view 
these gifts under the aspect of merit or demerit, under the 
aspect of what God owes to man, not of what He owes to 
his promise. The Bible knows both points of view; hence 
what is righteousness in one sense, is lovingkindness in an 
other sense, Ps. xxxvi, 6,7. 2.) All these four aspects of 
the divine righteousness assume a more distinct form in 
God’s dealings with Israel. a.) Jehovah is righteous in giv- 
ing laws to Israel, Zeph, mtt,5; Deut. 1s 8 sexi, oy pe 
He decides in cases of dispute, sometimes between the indi- 
vidual members of his people, at other times between Israel 
and Israel’s enemies; the Psalmists’ claim to be righteous 
and their appeal to Jehovah’s righteousness, is to be inter- 

reted frequently on this principle. Judg. v, 11; Mic. vu, 
5, Is. LI, 22; Liv, 17; c.) Jehovah in virtue of his righteous- 
ness punishes sin. His penal righteousness is conformity to 
the rule of punishment laid down in the revealed law. Ps. 
vil, 11; Is. v, 16; x, 22. This sense of the term is especially 
frequent in penitential prayers belonging to the later period 
of O. T. history, when the retributive significance of the 


67 


national calamities had been disclosed to the pious. Lam. 1, 
Teel Chrohaxi, 6: Ezra 1x,1o5.Neh- 1x) 33 oDan. Imckd. 
Ritschl has denied that the punishment of sin appears 
in the Old Testament as a direct result of the divine 
righteousness; in his view the Bible means by righteous- 
ness the activity of God to procure peace or salvation 
for his people, and only as an incidental consequence of 
this the destruction of the wicked is connected with his 
righteousness, But there are passages in the Old Testament 
which undoubtedly speak of righteousness revealed in judicial 
condemnation, in punishment pure and simple, Ps. ur, 4; d.) 
Jehovah’s fulfilment of the covenant-promises to Israel 1s 
called his righteousness. This may be applied to the condi- 
tional promises, and then such statements ensue as Ps. XvIIt, 
25, 26; Is. xiviir, 18; according to which the wicked are 
excluded from the operation of ‘the divine righteousness in 
this special sense. More frequently it is applied to the uncon- 
ditional promises, which God fulfills irrespectively of what 
Israel may do; I Sam. xu, 7; Dan. rx, 15, 16 compared with 
vs. 18, 19; righteousness here is eqnivalent to mercy ; else- 
where it is equivalent to truth in the sense of fidelity, Ps. 
ext, 1; Neh. rx, 33; I Jno. 1, 9. Sometimes it stands in 
paralielism with salvation and passes from the abstract sense 
of a divine attribute into the concrete one of the objective 
embodiment of this attribute in saving deeds or gifts. This. 
is especially the case in the second part of the prophecies of 
Isaiah, xLvi, 8; u1, 5,6, 8; Lv, 1. Isaiah goes even one 
step further when he calls the subjective righteousness to be 
bestowed upon Israel “the righteousness of God,” Lx1, 10, 11. 

It is in this fourth application of the idea to Israel that: 
Hosea speaks of the righteousness of Jehovah. As there is 
in Him a strict adherence to what He has promised, so the 
people in the future will be made to fullfil what they have 
vowed to Jehovah, 1,19. If they sow according to right- 
eousness, they will reap in mercy; Jehovah’s attitude to 
them is dependent on their own conduct. Here mercy on 
God’s part corresponds to righteousness on Israel’s part, x. 
12. But in the next clause the same thought is thus ex- 
pressed: ‘It is time to seek Jehovah, till He come and rain 
righteousness upon you,” so that mercy is also equivalent to: 
righteousness in God. 


68 


3.) Lhe Breach of the Covenant on Israel’s Part. (Hosea’s 
teaching on the subject of sin.) bisee! 


A list of prevailing .sins reminding strongly of the 
Decalogue is found in Ch. 1v, 2. Elsewhere the prophet 
‘defines sin as forgetting and trespassing of the law, Iv, 6; 
vill, 1. But this is not so much a formal as a material 
definition of sin, the prophet meaning to teach not only 
what is sin, but why it is sin. The law being the expres- 
sion of Jehovah’s covenant-will, the law of the husband to 
whom the married Israel] is subject, transgression is an as- 
sault upon his rights as covenant-Lord. How much the 
prophet views the various forms of sin as proceeding from 
this one principle of covenant-unfaithfulness, may be seen 
from vi, 7, where he compares the sin of Israel to the first 
transgression of the ancestor of the race. 

_ ‘The sin of Israel is of long standing. It began as early 
as the days of wandering in the wilderness, 1x, 10. Israel 
has sinned from the days of Gibeah, x, 9, probably since the 
origin of Saul’s kingdom, who was from Gibeah in Ben- 
jamin. All through her childhood Israel credited the 
Baalim with what Jehovah did for her, x1, 2. Hosea, there- 
fore, shares with the historical books of the O. T. the view 
that Israel’s history was almost one continuous apostasy, 
accompanied by unbroken prophetic protest, x1, 2. The sins 
and errors denounced by the prophets do not represent in 
his view a lower stage of development, to which at one time 
nobody attached blame. This is the critical view. The 
critics have always admitted that it is contradicted on every 
point by the historical writings of the O. T. But the writers 
or the redactors of these, it is said, have in later times, 
under the influence of unhistoric views, so manipulated the 
sources, that they no longer reflect the true course of events, 
but the course of events as construed from the subsequent 
legalistic standpoint. Thus the discrepancy between the 
eritical view and the historical books is accounted for. 
But now the prophets, as begins to be recognized more and 
more, hold in principle the same view as the historical 
books. Their testimony is that there was: a.) a perfect 
.and pure beginning of Israel’s religion in revelation; b.) 
-a falling away from this; c.) an effort on the part of 
the prophets to reclaim the nation. Consequently the 


69 


evolutionary critics must declare this testimony of the 
prophets likewise historically unreliable. They say: the 
prophets reasoned back from calamity in ancient times to sin 
in ancient times. Thus it appears that the critical view is at 
variance with the historic credibility of the larger part of the 
Biblical writings, prophetic as well as historical. The sin of 
Israel is wilful apostasy. Hosea characterizes it as  false- 
hood, lying in reference to Jehovah, vil, 18; x, 18; x1, 12. 
These terms are meant in the sense of denial of a previously 
recognized relation. In several passages the conduct of 
Israel is qualified as treachery, v, 7; v1, 7. 

Hosea is conscious of standing at a point where the 
crisis in this downward process has been reached.  [srael is 
like a deceitful bow which has lost its tension v1, 16. Striving 
and reproving have become useless, Iv, 4, cfr. with Deut. 
xvi, 12. The condition of Ephraim is like that of a sick 
man, the full extent of whose inner ruin is only realized in 
the effort to cure him. vi1, 1. In Hosea for the first time 
the idea of sin as an enslaving power, rendering its victims 
unable to reform, is formulated, v,4; vit, 2. Back ofsingle 
transgressions there is a sinful tendency, ‘‘ the spirit of 
whoredom is within them,” ‘they are bent to backsliding 
from Jehovah”, x1, 7. “Ephraim is a cake not turned ”; 
he remains quietly on the wrong side, persists in doing evil, 
however disastrous the consequences. 

In two things the sinful character of Israel has chiefly 
revealed itself. Hosea calls these ‘their two transgressions,” 
x, 10. The context shows that the sin cornected with the 
kingship and that of idolatry are referred to. Cfr. also vIIr, 
14. The kingship is referred to in condemnatory terms in 
the following passages: 1, 4; 111, 4,5; vir, 83-7; vir, 4; x, 
3, 7; x11, 10,11. Some of these go farther than an attack 
upon the character of individual kings. Hosea condemns 
the kingship, because it is founded on pride and distrust of 
Jehovah. ‘lhe king was to be a source of salvation, not a 
representative of, but as substitute for God. The first thought 
of having a king originated with the people although the 
initiative ought to have iain with Jehovah, vir, 4. The 
secession of the ten tribes was sinful in principle, because it 
involved division of the one wife of Jehovah. That Jehovah 
permitted it, Hosea would not have denied, for He punishes 
sin by the permission of further sin, xm, 10, 11. This con- 


70 


demnation of the whole Northern kingdom as an apostate 
kingdom, because it was a secession from the legitimate 
dynasty of David, is another point of agreement between 
Hosea and historical books, in regard to which the critics 
accuse the latter of applying dogmatic and unhistorical 
standards. Hosea seems to condemn also the kingdom of 
‘Saul, as a product of the same spirit that gave rise to the 
‘secession, Ix, 9; x. 9. Hlence, though himself a North- 
Israelite, he predicts the return of the renewed Israel to the 
‘house of David, 111, 5. Hosea frequently calls the Northern 
kingdom by the contemptuous name of Ephraim, xii, 1, in 
the use of which term he is followed by Isaiah. The spirit 
out of which all this political transgression was born is “ the 
pride of Israel,” v, 5; vir,.10. It is the haughtiness born of 
self-reliance, the very opposite of humble trast in Jehovah, 
Hosea does not speak of faith positively, as Isaiah does, 
but this rebuke of the pride of Ephrain: shows that the idea 
is familiar to him. This pride stands in the way of conver- 
sion, VII, 10. Connected with it is Ephraim’s craving after 
riches. The prophet compares them to Canaan, that is to the 
Pheenicians, the great traffickers of the ancient world, x1, 7. 
The charge implied i is threefold: 1.) They have missed their 
theocratic vocation by counting it their highest : aim to become 
rich and powerful like the P heenician’: ‘© at all events I am 
become rich”; 2) in their immoderate desire to obtain 
riches they have been altogether unscrupulous in regard to 
the means employed. Balances of deceit were in their hand, 
they loved oppression. This is one of the constant burdens 
of prophetic denunciation. Of course it was a class sin, but 
Hosea makes the nation reponsible for it, and views it from a 
religious standpoint; 8.) they appeased their conscience with 
avoiding the more external and flagrant forms of wickedness. 
A distinction was made between iniquity in general and 
iniquity that is sin, a curious example of admitting a third 
category between good and evil. Their conscience itself had 
become a meretricious organ, it warned them no longer 
against what was sinful in “principle, but only against what 
was dangerously sinful in consequences. 

Finally the prophet speaks of Israel’s courting the favor 
of foreign powers as flagrant sin against Jehovah, vi, 8, 11, 
12; x11, 1. According to vin, 9, 10 this is a species of politi- 
cal adultery. 


71 


The second sin of Israel is idolatry. Hosea nowhere 
sharply distinguishes between the open service of other gods 
and the corrupt worship of Jehovah, because both fell under 
the same condemnation. He traces back the idolatrous bent 
of the people to the following causes: 1.) Sensuality. 
‘¢ Whoredom, wine and new wine take away the understand- 
ing” Iv, ll. Physical whoredom is the cause of religious 
whoredom, vs. 12. Sensuality promoted idolatry in a two- 
fold way, by attracting to the sensual, heathen cults, and by 
darkening the religious perceptions. The sweet sensual 
cakes of raisin were “symbolic of this type of religion, 11, 1, 
and the foolish people kissed the calves, XIII, 2. 2.) The 
naturalistic belief that the chief function of religion was to 
secure the regular eee of agricultural blessings. The 
Israelites believed that the Baalim, the indigenous gods, gave 
the bread, the water, the wool, the flax, the oil, the drink, 11, 
5. The produce of the soil was the reward for which Israel 
prostituted herself, 1x, 2. The feasts as connected with 
agriculture became fruitful occasions of idolatry, 1, 11. This 
worship of Baal, and the worship of Jehovah assimilated to 
it, meant the empoverishment of religious life, because it 
revolved around the physical facts of rain and drought, fertility 
and famine, victory and defeat. The historical and spiritual 
elements were eliminated. Hence the relation to the idols was 
a caricature of the covenant-relation to Jehovah, rv, 17, and 
in this covenant with idols the people became abominable like 
that which they loved, 1x, 10, the opposite of such transfor- 
mation in the image of Jehovah as the true covenant would 
have effected. This naturalistic conception of religion lay 
at the basis of the sacrificial cult of Jehovah as practised in 
Hosea’s time, and later, and furnishes the explanation of the 
prophetic polemic against this cult. The Israelites brought 
their offerings from the Pagan motive of thereby inducing 
Jehovah as by physical means to show them favor. It was 
not merely the profoundly ethical, but likewise the pro- 
foundly religious spirit of prophetism which repudiated this 
spirit. That the sacrificial cult in itself is not condemned 
by Hosea follows from such passages as 1x,4; xiv, 8. 3.) The 
multiplication of the places of worship There was a nat- 
ural connection between the unity of Jehovah as the God of 
‘Israel and the centralization of worship in the one legal 
sanctuary. This unity was broken by Jeroboam 1. Hosea 


72 


considers the numerous local shrines the seats of paganizing | 
influence; Iv, 18; x, 8; the last passage mentions the Bamoth. 
It is true Hosea does not explicitly condemn the Bamoth 
because they are forbidden by the law, but simply because 
they tempt to idolatry. This, however, is in harmony with 
the general prophetic method of recurring upon principles 
and enforcing the contents of the law in the light of past 
experience. In vi, 11, 12 the prophet clearly refers to the 
prohibition of numerous altars in the law. 

The precise relation between the worship of Jehovah and 
the cult of foreign gods in [osea’s time is not easily determined 
from his statements. We observe: 1.) That probably none 
of the Israelites went so far as to renounce Jehovah entirely 
and to serve the Baalim exclusively. They served Jehovah 
and Baal together. From the prophet’s point of view such 
divided fealty was no fealty at all; v, 6; virr, 18; 1x, 4, 5. 
Even in the worst times of Ahab the cult of the Tyrian Baal 
was not intended tosupplant the worship of Jehovah entirely, 
for in Ahab’s family the children were called after Jehovah. 
2.) The official cult in the Northern kingdom had always 
remained the cult of Jehovah ever since the reformation of 
Jehu, Il Kings x, 28. The prophet nowhere ee the 
kings with openly patronizing the cult of Baal. 3) The 
worship of Jehovah had become so deeply corr upted by the 
influence of the Baal-cult, as to be little better in the eye of 
the prophet than the latter. It was affected by the Baal- 
eult in the following respects: a.) The bull-form of the 
image of Jehovah at Dan, Bethel, and perhaps elsewhere, 
was proper to Baal. Whether derived from the Canaanites 
or from Egypt, it symbolized in either case the fructifying 
power of the sun. Thus Jehovah was assimilated to Baal. A 
god represented by the image of a calf becomes sexually dif- 
ferentiated, so that a femaie deity may be associated with 
him. To the historical conception of Jehovah such differen- 
tiation was utterly foreign, The Hebrew has not even a 
word tor goddess. b.) Under the influence of Baal-wor- 
ship, Jehovah became subject to the multiplying process, 
which constantly divides the heathen deities into a num- 
ber of gods, distinguished either according to the locali- 
ties where they are worshipped or the various attributes — 
and activities predicated of them. There were numerous 
Baalim, u, 17. The Deuteronomic law warns against 


73 


this danger, vi, 4. c.) From the cult of Baal certain 
sacred objects passed into the worship of Jehovah. Such 
were the Mazzeboth and Asheroth. The Mazzeboth were 
originally memorial stones, Gen. xxvii, 18, but in Pagan- 
ism they became objects of idolatrous worship as posses- 
sing a certain inherent divinity. Hence the Mazzeboth, 
at first inobjectionable, were forbidden by the law. They 
stood by the side of Baal’s altar, and to erect them near 
Jehovah’s altar meant to lower his conception to that of 
a Baal. The Asheroth or Asherim (A. V. erroneously 
‘““sroves”’) were pillars of wood in the form of a tree- 
stump. They were sacred to the female deity Ashtoreth or 
Astarte, who represented the moon. The Asheroth were 
the embodiment of a Pagan idea of the most sensual type; 
their very form seems to have been obscene in some cases. 
The goddess Ashtoreth was worshipped by fornication; the 
Qedeshim and Qedeshoth,male or female temple-prostitutes, 
originated in her cult. To place an Asherah near Jehovah’s 
altar, meant to introduce into his service the most degraded 
rites of nature-worship. T[losea protests against all these 
corrupting influences. He speaks with more horror and 
indignation of the calf-w orship than of the Baal-cult pure 
and ‘simple, because he recognizes the desperately dangerous 
character of the assimilation of Jehovah to Baal. A century 
and a half before his time Elijah and Elisha had conteuted 
themselves with opposing the worship of the foreign Baal in- 
troduced from Tyre, without directly attacking the Jehovah- 
worship associated with the calves. They chose the lesser 
of two evils. In Iosea’s time the situation had changed, 
the worship of Jehovah having become so corrupt as to be 
hardly distinguishable from the Baal cult. This is the 
explanation of the change of method in the prophetic 
polemic, and not, as the critics assume, the fact that in the 
interval between Elisha and Hosea, the first scruples in 
regard to images arose in the minds of the more advanced 
worshippers of Jehovah. Hosea goes so far as to call the 
caltamage: Baal, i) Ss Vill, 4—6 3) Xi. KIT, Pe Ch 11, 16 
shows how even the appellative use of Baal (Lord), as 
applied to Jehovah, became a tempation to idolatry. ‘ My 
Baal” could mean as well “that particular form of Baal 
which I worship” a ‘‘ Jehovah my Lord” and on account 
of this seductive ambiguity Hosea foretells that in the future 


74 


its use will be avoided. This prediction was so literally 
fulfilled that the later Biblical writers substitute for Baal 
in ancient compound proper names, Bosheth, ‘ shame ” 
making out. of Eshbaal, Ishbosheth, ete. ak 1x, 10: The 
Mazzeboth Hosea mentions 18 lc tN The Asheroth 
he does not mention, although they must ee existed in his 
day. In how tar the flagrant forms of voluptuousness had 
invaded the service of Jehovah cannot be determined. In 
later times there were prostitutes in the temple of Jeru- 
salem. Wellhausen thinks that Amos 0, 7, proves the 
the same fact for the Northern kingdom at this early date, 
but this is far from certain. Jehovah’s name would be 
profaned by what is described there, by its happening in the 
Jand, even if it did not take place in his house.  LILosea tv, 
15 is not decisive, because at Bethel there may have been a 
high-place of Baal as well as a sanctuary of Jehovah. That 
human sacrifices were brought to Jehovah there is no proof 
whatever, for x11, 2 should be rendered “ Let the men that 
sacrifice kiss the calves.” low degraded in general the 
service of sane had become may be inferred from the 
character of its priests, vi, 9; Iv, 6-9. They desecrated 
their office by promoting sin, because sin would be followed 
by sin-offerings and the sin- offerings were to be eaten by 
the priests. Wellhausen thinks that the word “sin” in Iv, 
8. refers to the sacrificial cult in general, but such a con- 
demnation of the cult in itself would be wholly unprec- 
edented. Wellhausen is forced to this unnatural inter- 
pretation, because of his theory that the sin-offering and 
uilt-offering did not origipvate until shortly before the date 
of Ezekiel, with whom he claims these technical terms are 
first found. But there is in this passage of Hosea a clear 
reference to the ritual of the sin-oftering, in which the meat 
was eaten by the priest. The prophet lays on the double 
meaning of the word nxn = sin and sin- offering. On both 
the prie ests fed, metaphoric: ally on the former, “literally on 
the latter. 

The climax of Israel’s sin was reached by the persecu- 
tion of those who rebuked sin, the prophets of Jehovah, rx, 
8. In the prophets they attacked Jehovah Himself, and 
thus revealed the inmost character of sin as enmity against 
God. The prophet feels that this persecution is in reality 
striking at God, and for this reason, he calls the latter ‘‘ my 


75 


God ” and complains of enmity in “the house of his God.” 
Cfr. Amos vit, 10-17. 

Llosea’s references to Judah are of a twofold character. 
On the one hand Judah is represented as comparatively faith- 
ful to Jehovah, 1, 7; Iv, 15; perhaps xr, 12. On the other hand 
there are numerous passages eqnaily condemnatory of Judah 
as those referring to sie gl Sein. WV; ON 106 12181146) va, 
4,11; vin, 14; x,11; xi, 2. Ewald ‘has explained the differ. 
ence between these two classes of statements on the supposi- 
tion that Hosea at first knew Judah from a distance only, and 
that afterwards visiting the Southern kingdom he changed 
his opinion. It is more probable that the altered judgment 
was the result of a change for the worse in Judah’s condi- 
tion. When Hosea began to prophesy Uzziah reigned at 
Jerusalem, who did what was right in the eyes of Je ehovah as 
did Jotham his son, I Kings xv, 3. To their reigns we must 
assign 1, 7; tv, 15, in the former of which passages Jehovah is 
called Judah’ s God. Even here, however, an indirect blame 
of Judah is implied, because they trusted in warlike prepara- 
tions. In Ahaz’ time Judah’s conduct was much more con- 
demnable and to this period the remaining passages belong. 
Hosea always mentions Judah in connection with Israel, 
which fact, together with rv, 15, points to imitation of the 
sins of Israel by the Judeeans. Bethel and Gilgal were near 
enough the Southern kingdom to exercise a seducing in- 
fluence. 

Llosea does not refer to the worship of such outlandish 
deities as Amos speaks of in the well-known passage, v, 26. 


4.) The covenant-judgment and its twofold purpose. 


Hosea opens that new development of prophecy which 
proceeds to announce the judgment as an inevitable decree. 
He is even more decisive in this respect than Amos, who 
prophesied somewhat earlier. With his knowledge of the 
actual outcome of I[srael’s history, he perceives that all pro- 
phetic activity from beginning to end has had no other result 
but to increase the people’s sin, x1, 2, and the severity of 
the judgment in consequence, vi, 4. The judgment is a 
harvest for which sin has been the seed, v1, 11; vi, 7. It 
is strictly proportionate to the sin committed, which is care- 
fully put away, so that nothing can be lost to remembrance, 


76 


xu, 12.. As it is Israel who has sinned, so the judgment 
will strike the nation as an organic whole and not merely 
individuals; 'tv;'5, 6, 18; x1, 16; efr. 1, 4. 

Hosea conceives of all single judgments as proceeding 
from the one source of the personal withdrawal of .Jehovah, 
v, 6, 15; 1x,12. Beyond all second causes the prophet finds 
in this the one great calamity destroying Israel. The exile 
appears as a gricvous punishment, because it expresses in 
external form the fact of this separation 1x, 3, 8,17. Thisis 
one more point where the idea of the marriage-covenant 
shows its influence. The direct result of the withdrawal of 
Jehovah's favor is that Israe] becomes subject to a process of 
death. The truth that death is the wages of sin is here 
revealed in the-national life of Israel, v, 12; Vil; 9F-xi11, 1 
In the last-mentioned passage, it is best to render interroga- 
tively: ‘Shall [ransom them from the power of the grave, 
redeem them from death?”’ Jehovah Himself answers this 
question in the negative by sammoning the plagues of death 
to overwhelm them. I Cor. xv, 55 is not intended as a quota- 
tion reproducing the sense of the prophet, but as a new turn 
given to the words whereby they are changed into a triumph- 
ant question of the believer in view of the victory over 
death. Looking at second causes we may say that the 
national decline of the Northern kingdom was brought about: 
1.) By the instability of the governing power owing to the 
frequent changes of dynasty. Selfishness was the principle 
on which the kings ruled and each change, though intended 
to give relief trom the oppression of the e preceeding dynasty 
or king, still further curtailed the people’s freedom. Accord- 
ing to x1, 1 the secession was the beginning of death for 
Ephraim. 2.) By the moral degeneracy promoted by the 
heathen cults. Sensuality undermined the national vigor, 
Iv, 6,14. The corruption of sexual morality issues in “the 
decrease of posterity and thus saps Israel’s strength, rv, 10 
(of the priests); rx, 11,16 “The glory of Israel ” means 
their posterity. In rx, 14, 15 the prophet himself in his zeal 
for Jehovah’s honor invokes this curse of barrenness upon. 
the people, for thus the words must be understood and not 
as an intercessory prayer inspired by Hosea’s foresight of the 
terrible fate in store for Israel’s children. 38.) By the social 
sins of Israel, the oppression of the poor, the disastrous in- 
fluence of the abuse of power and the increase of luxury, 
xu, 7-14. 


17 


To these factors at work in the national life of Israel 
were added natural calamities.. In Ch. iv, 3 the prophet 
speaks of something that had already come; a.great drought 
sent by Jehovah to punish the people. Cfr. Amos Iv, 6-12. 

The one great judgment which will overthrow Israel is 
the Assyrian invasion. Since more than 100 years the 
Assyrians had come in contact with the kingdom of Israel. 
As early as 854 it seems, King Ahab fought in company with 
the Syrians against Sulmanassar II. The same Salmanassar 
received tribute from Jehu if we may believe the Assyrian 
record. During the reign of Jehu’s dynasty the Assyrian 
advance worked more or less in Israel's favor, because it 
diverted the Syrians, whose attacks had greatly reduced the 
Northern kingdom. The next Assyrian king to interfere in 
Israel’s history was Tiglath Pilesar II (745-728), the Pul 
of the Bible, cotemporaneous with Hosea.. Probably when 
Hosea began to prophesy about 750, he had not yet ascended 
the throne. In the first three chapters of Hosea, the Assy- 
rians are not mentioned by name; in the second part they 
are named repeatedly as the instrument of Jehovah’s judg- 
ment. Side by side with Assyria, Hosea speaks of Egypt, 
sometimes of Egypt alone. On the other hand the usual 
rendering of Ch. x1, 8, makes the prophet declare that the 
people shall not go to Egypt. Some propose as a solution 
that [losea wavered at various times in his views concerning 
the outcome of the conflict between Assyria and Egypt in 
which Israel was implicated. Others assume that Egypt is 
named by Hosea in a symbolic way, as the land of captivity. 
The best explanation is that the prophet, while distinctly 
foretelling the conquest of the land by Assyria, yet an- 
nounces the removal of the people to both Egypt and 
Assyria, x, 6; 1x, 6. No one ean affirm that his prophecies 
on this point have not been literally fulfilled. According 
to x11, 2, there existed a party among those in power who 
courted the favor of Egypt. During the reign of Hosea, the 
last king, a formal covenant had been concluded between 
Egypt and Israel, and this covenant was the cause of Sal- 
manassar IV’s march against Samaria. It was natural, then, 
that many Israelites should seek refuge in Egypt when the 
catastrophe came; cfr. further rx, 17; x1, 11. 

The twofold purpose of the judgment is to punish for 
sin and to lead to the renewal of Israel. Ch. x11, 13, is 


78 


the clearest passage for the distinction between these two 
aspects. Because the iniquity of Ephraim is remembered,. 

the sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him. 

Sin issues in pain. But at “the same time the pain leads to- 
something new. Ephraim is a son to be born. In the former 
respect Israel is the mother giving birth to the child, in the 
latter respect the child born by the mother. The old Israel 
must die in order that the new Israel may coine to life. 

The birth is a process involving deadly pain, ‘“ Ephraim is. 
an unwise son, for when it is time he entereth not in 
the place of the breaking forth of children.” Ephraim 
by continuing to sin lengthens the throes of judgment, 

delays the birth of the new “people of God, besides endanger- 
ing the life of the mother more: seriously with each hour. 

This is the first definite reference in the O. T. to the idea of 
the Messianic woes. Isaiah has taken up this idea,. and. 
especially Micah has further developed it. Our Lord has. 
applied it to the calamities of the last times. But its first 
great fulfilment the idea has found in the sufferings of the 
Messiah Himself, and the prophetic teaching on the twofold: 
aspect of the judgment is of the greatest importance for the 
doctrine of the atonement. 

The judgment leads to conversion in the following 
manner: 1.) It is a judgment enlightening as to the causes- 
which have provoked Jehovah’s anger, and thus productive 
of conviction of sin. For this reason it strikes precisely 
those things that have been to Israel the instruments of 
sinning, VII} 65 x, 2,0, 4,8, 141) 3 x16.) 2. TG compels 
Israel to live a long time without the objects of their adulter- 
ous love, 11, 9,12. The prophet, on taking back his wife, 
keeps her in strict confinement to symbolize this idea, III, 
8, 4,5. 38.) Inasmuch as Israel had not only served the idols 
side by side with Jehovah, but also served Jehovah Himself 
in a sinful way, the withdrawing of the instruments of sin 
would of itself simply have led to a renewed zeal in the cor- 
rupt naturalistic cult of Jehovah, but not to genuine con- 
version. Such spurious conversion is described in II, 7; v, 63 
vil, 14 (the rendering of the Septuagint, which read y1am is 
probably to be preferred: ‘ they howl upon their beds, they 
cut themselves for corn and wine”? cfr, I Kings xvitt, 28); 
vit, 2. It takes place before Jehovah has: sealed the judg- 
ment by finally withdrawing Himself from them. Ch. vI,. 


79 


1-3 describes something midway between spurious and true 
conversion, not insincere but transitory, deficient in this 
also that it expects too confidently and too soon the restora- 
tion to Jehovah’s favor, vs. 2; vs. 8 reflects still the influ- 
ence of the old naturalistic conceptions: Jehovah’s return is 
represented as partaking of the necessity which belongs to 
the processes of nature, the dawn, the rain; the free, 
spiritual love of God which hes above compulsion has not 
been grasped as yet. From all this it appears that only by 
a personal separation between Jehovah and Israel, could 
the latter be led to a purer and higher conception of his 
service, v, 15. Hence the prophet not merely separates his 
wife from her lovers, but at the same time provides that 
there shall be no fellowship between her and Himself, rr. 3. 

After thus having been prepared by the judgment Israel 
is finally won by a new revelation of the love of Jehovah 
taking compassion upon her in her misery. The efficient 
cause of the conversion is a positive act. Jehovah will speak 
to her heart. He delivers them anew and leads them home 
through the wilderness, 11, 14, 15. It 1s this returning favor 
and love of God which turns Isracl’s heart and makes her 
answer as in the day of her youth, vs. 15. Nevertheless even 
the love of Jehovah could not have effected this, bad Israel 
not previously passed through the experience of the judg- 
ment. That this experience contributes a very essential 
element to their repentance the prophet emphasizes in vs. 15, 
“Twill give her her vineyards from thence.” Only as one 
who has been in the desert and has learned ail the desert 
has to teach, can Israel receive back her privileges. For 
‘the valley of Achor,” cfr. Josh. vir, 24-26. 

The conversion itself is described as implying the fol- 
lowing elements: 1.) The profound recognition of sinfulness, 
xIv, 2; the emphasis lies on “all.” An entirely new record 
must be begun, for the whole of the past is condemnable. 
2.) A specific recognition of the two principal forms of sin, 
political pride and idolatry, vs. 3. 3.) The conviction that no 
external worship can do aught to restore the favor of Jeho- 
vah, vs. 2. ‘ Accept that which is good” refers to the words 
of confession, the bullocks of the lips, the only sacrifice 
Jehovah can accept. 4.) The appreciation of the free, for- 
giving love of Jehovah ready to receive them notwithstand- 
ing their utter unworthiness, vs. 3 ‘“‘ for in Thee the father- 


80 


less findeth mercy.’ They dare not call themselves Jehovah’s 
wife, not even his children; Israel is an orphan, but Israel 
knows nevertheless, that the orphan findeth mercy with 
Jehovah. This element of trust mixed with fear entering 
into the penitence of Israel is beautifully described in ti, 5 
“they shall tremble unto Jehovah and to his goodness ” and 
in xI, 16. 


5.) The restoration of the covenant-bond and its ideal perfection. 


Hosea’s references to the future state of Israel, as it will 
be after the conversion, are contained in Ch. 1, 10, 113 1, 
18-23; xiv, 4-9. The first of these three passages has been 
attacked by many critics, partly because of its reference to 
Judah, partly because of the abrupt transition from threaten- 
ing to promise, between vs. 9 and 10. But if this, then all 
passages referring to Judah must be expunged, and this the 
more moderate critics themselves refuse to do. The abrupt 
transition is not more remarkable than that between vss. 7 
and 8 in Ch. x1 or vss. 8 and 4 in Ch. xur. Some try to- 
remove it by separating vs. 10 and 11 from the first chapter, 
making them introductory to Ch. 1, but this yields a denun- 
ciatory discourse, opening with promises, and destroys the 
harmonious structure of the first part of the book which 
consists of three discourses each beginning with rebuke and 
closing with promise. 

These sections of Hosea contain the following promises: 

1.) The union between Jehovah and Israel will be per- 
fectly restored, 1,19. The verb wos always denotes the first 
betrothal of a man and a woman, never the reunion of hus- 
band and wife once separated. The past, therefore, will 
entirely be blotted out and no guilt, no remembrance will 
remain to cast a shadow on the new covenant. In Ch III 
the prophet adheres to the figure of his own marriage only 
long enough to describe the process of discipline, and im- 
mediately drops it where it would have to be applied to the 
re-adoption of Israel into a new covenant. Jehovah will 
love Israel freely, x1v, 4, and she will respond freely, 1, 15. 
And this union effects at its very beginning a transformation 
of Israel into the likeness of Jehovah. The attributes 
enumerated in 11, 19, 20, are neither attributes of Jehovah 


81 


exclusively, nor of Israel exclusively, but the qualities in 
which the new Israel will resemble her covenant-husband, 
imparted to her as his bridal gifts. As there is in [im a 
strict adherence to what [Le promises in covenant, so Israel 
will be made to fulfill her vows: Ife will betroth her unto 
Himself.in righteousness and judgment. Further, in case of 
transgression, which still remains possible, Jehovah will be 
willing to forgive: Ife will betroth her unto Himself in 
loving kindness and mercy. And thus, in the exercise of 
these combined attributes, there will be given an absolute 
guarantee for the indissoluble character of the new covenant: 
Ie will betroth her unto Iinself in faithfulness, Israel will 
not only reflect, but will consciously reproduce these per- 
fections of Jehovah. She will lovingly and intelligently ap- 
preciate what Ile is and work out his attributes in her own 
life: “ And thou shalt know Jehovah’.—In Ch. xiv, 4 the 
transformation of Israel is described as a healing of her 
backslidings, which perhaps implies a contrast to the con- 
fidence of half-converted Israel, that Jehovah will heal her 
external wounds, vi, 1. | 

2.) The Israelites will become individually sons of Jeho- 
vah, and not merely the son of Jehovah in their collective 
eapacity, 1,10. “In the place” does not mean “ in stead 
of” but in the land, where the sentence of rejection: had 
practically been pronounced upon them, the land of the 
captivity. They will be sons of the diving God, because in 
the future they will realize the immense privile es which the 
service of the true God confers upon Israel. “As once they 
had been eager to make Jehovah like the heathen gods, so 
now they will be profoundly conscious of the essential dif- 
ference between Him and them. 


This prophecy of Ifosea concerning the readoption of 
Asracl is applied in Rom. Ix, 25, 26 and I Pet. 11, 10 to the 
‘incorporation of the Gentiles into the N, T. Church, Paul 
and Peter do not quote Hosea’s words because they find in 
‘them an explicit prediction of the calling of the Gentiles, but 
‘because of the underlying principle, which is that a people 
wholly rejected of God and estranged from his favor can 
‘by an act of sovereign love be adopted! into sonship. This 
“principle applied equally well to the calling of the Gentiles 
“as to the restoration of Israel. , 


82 


3.) The readoption of Israel will be followed by an 
unparalleled increase in posterity, 1,10. By ‘the children 
of Israel” the Esphraimites are eau although, in point of 
fact, the Judaeans share in the same promise. The prophet 
predicts that the name Jezreel, ominously given to his first 
child with reference to the place where Isracl’s power was 
to be broken, 1, 5, will in the future obtain a totally difter- 
ent meaning. Jezreel signifies * Jehovah sows” aud God 
promises «“T will sow her unto me in the land, cra 2s. 
Though those who return are a handful of seed, they will 
grow into an innumerable multitade. In regard to this point 
also a distinction must be made between the abstract prin- 
eiple underlying the ae and its concrete expression. 
“As to the former there can be no doubt of its having been 
fulfilled in the ealling of the Gentiles. They are the num- 
erous descendants promised to Israe}, the real sons of Abra- 
ham, This is not a mere figure of speech but the organic 
‘view taken of the propagation of the Apostolie Chureh 
‘throughout the whole N. T, 9 The univers salistic Church of 
the present has grown out of the Isracl-church of the old 
‘dispensation. The tormer is the ehild of the latter. Cir. I 
‘Cor. rf 1-5. 

4.) The reunion of Israel and Jehovah will involve the 
reunion of Israel and Judah. Having condemned the seces- 
sion of the ten tribes as sin, [Losea could not but give a place 
to the healing of this breach in a future, which would bring 
the healing of all sin. Tere again, the question is not pri- 
marily how Hosea may have conceived of the fulfilment of 
‘this promise, but what is the general principle expressed by 
the spirit of prophecy in this concrete form. The external 
reunion of Judah and Israel at the end of the exile is no 
“more than a preliminary realisation of the idea, that all 
divisions among the people of God will be done away with. 
Observe that in vs. 11, the capivity of Judah is presupposed 
as well as of Israel. 

5.) This reunion will lead to the appointment over the 
united people of one head. Like the other features, this 
one is in the prophet’s mind the opposite of what had con- 
stituted Israel’s sin. They had once set over themselves 
two heads: now they will prove their conversion by setting 
choosing of their own accord one head, 1, 11. According to 
ul, 15, this head will be the Prince of God’s choice, “ David 


83 


their King.’ The recognition of him as Ruler will be 
equivalent to entire resubmission to Jehovah: they will 
“seek Jehovah their God and David their King.” As early 
as ILosea prophecy has adopted this remarkable mode of 
speech which identifies the Messiah with David; efr. Ezek. 
XXXIV, 23; xxxvil, 24. Much more is intended than that 
the future Ruler will be a descendant of David In Lim will 
be reproduced in a far higher seuse that which made David 
an ideal representative of Jehovah and the instrument of 
‘great blessing for Israel. 

6.) The appointment of David as Head serves the 
immediate purpose of a victorious extension of Israel’s rule 
over the neighboring peoples, J, ir. The land from which 
the children of Isracl and Judah shall go up is not the land 
of the captivity, but their own Jand restored to them by Je 
hovah. They go up to give battle to the Gentiles. Their 
united marching forth under so great a Prince is accounted 
for by the greatness of the occasion: ‘¢ For great shall be 
the day of Jezreel.” The prophet expects two days of erit- 
ical unportance for the kingdom of God. The first is the 
day of Jezreel ominously so called, the day of judgment. 
The second day is that day of the battle of Jezreel which 
brings victory for the new kingdom of God. The valley 
of Jezreel was the ancient battle ¢ ground of northern Israel. 
The day of Jezreel is the equivalent of IIosea for what Joel 
and Amos call “ the day of Jehovah.” 

It will be observed that this is the only form in which 
the element of conscious universalism appears in Lfosea’s 
delineation of the future. The prophet belongs to the same 
stage in the development. of universalistic prophecy witb. 
Joel, Obadiah and Amos. 

7.) The preeeding events will usher in a new and final 
stage in the history of the kingdom of God, and cuonse- 
quently Ilosea describes them as taking place in ‘the latter 
days.” This is not a purely chronological term: it denotes 
not merely the end, but the end as issue of the whole 
previous dev elopment. The term is a relative one as to its 
chronological reference. To each prophet * the latter days” 
js that crisis or issue in the history of redemption which bor- 
ders hishorizon. Tothe patriarch Jacob it meant the period 
‘following the first conquest of Canaan, Gen, xtrx; 1. That 


5 . . . 
was his prophetichorizon. To the later prophets * the latter 


84 


days” mean the period when the new Isracl will live, the 
Messianic period, Still later prophets were given to see 
that even the first advent of the Messiah left room for an 
expectation of * latter days” in the future. Llosea, of course, 
does not distinguish intervals of time within the future de- 
picted by him. The Important point is that he expects a - 
detinite conclusion to the drama of the history of his people. 
As the history of redemption had a beginning so it will have 
an end. 
8.) The final blessedness of the new people of God is 
described in two passages of transcendent beauty, 1, 18-22 
and xiv, 5-8. According to the former it will be a condi- 


tion of universal peace, both in the world of nature and in 
‘the world of man. Jehovah will make a covenant tor Israel 


with the animal world. A covenant is a new order of 


things, a natural appointment of God followed instinctively, 
‘the implication being that the natural world itself will be 


transformed for the sake of Jehovah’s people. The word 
eeuiee and the threefold division of the animal kingdom 


‘remind of Gen, rx. What had been partially secured in 


-Noah’s covenant by a subjugation of the animal world will 


‘in the future covenant be secured by such grace as regener- 


ates and transforms. To the peace in nature will corres- 
pond the peace in the world of man. The bow, the sword 


‘and the battle will be broken out of the land. This coneep- 


tion of the universal reign of peace has been further clab- 
orated by Isaiah in some of the finest passages of lis prophecy. 
Nature will in the future with all her forces serve Israel. 


‘Jehovah answers the heavens, Binge the earth, the earth 
-eorn, wine and oil, they Jezreel, II, 21,22. The whole cir- 


— 


cuit of nature is set in motion to provide for Ged’s people. 
The prophet, however, guards ‘carefully against any misin- 


‘terpretation of this figure in the sense of the old nature- 


‘worship. It is not for the sake of these blessings that the 
‘future Israel will serve Jehovah. Their highest happiness . 


‘will consist in realizing that all blessings are the gift of Je- 
‘hovah and that his love speaks through them. Here the 


_ personal element of [osea’s idea of religion asserts itself in 
its noblest form. The charm of the concluding ehapter of 
‘his book lies precisely in this feature that it represents Je- 


‘hovah as personally present in all his favors and as in them 


‘giving Himself to Israel for never-failing enjoyment. In the 


85 


boldest metaphors this idea is carried out. Jehovah is the 
dew that makes Israel blossom as the lily, nay a wonderful 
tree from which the people pluck abundance of fruit. Here 
every false separation between the Giver and the gift has 
disappeared, the happy people in the blessings of the cov- 
enant experience so directly the love of Jehovah, as the hus- 
bandman tastes and enjoys the goodness of a tree in the fruit, 
he gathers from off its branches. 


